7^ 


fc.  C.  PIERCE.^ 

«    Ho.y.^.f.. \ 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


'/ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  witli  funding  from 

l\/licrosoft  Corporation 


littpV/www.arcliive.org/details/beliindscenessketOOiamsiala 


Behind  the  Scenes 


SKETCHES  FROM  REAL  LIFE. 


BY    A    PASTOR. 


^^  Prove  all -things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." — 1  Thess.  v.2I. 


CINCINNATI,  O.: 

O.  W.  Lasher,  Pubushkr. 

1683. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Cotigress  in  the  year  18S2,  by 

F.  M.  lAMS, 
In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


PUBLISHER'S  PREFACE. 

The  following  sketches  were  first  published  in  the 
Journal  and  Messenger  and  immediately  excited 
unusual  interest.  From  all  parts  of  the  country — 
from  ministers  and  laymen,  from  the  learned  and  the 
unlearned — began  to  come  calls  for  their  publication  in 
a  more  permanent  form.  Nothing  that  had  appeared 
for  years,  on  the  baptismal  question,  had  produced 
such  an  impression.  The  style  of  the  author  is 
direct  and  incisive;  everything  is  clear  and  carries 
conviction.  The  sketches  detail  personal  experiences 
and  deal  with  phases  of  the  question  not  usually 
presented  in  other  works.  The  argument  is  illus- 
trated by  facts  coming  directly  under  the.  author's 
observation,  and  is  made  clear  to  the  ordinary  in- 
,tellect.  The  author  is  the  esteemed  pastor  of  the 
Baptist  Church  at  Mansfield,  Ohio;  his  reputation 
among  his  brethren  is  unquestioned,  and,  morally, 
no  man  in  the  State  stands  higher.  His  ability  as  a 
writer  is  fully  vindicated  in  the  following  pages. 

The  demand  for  the  republication  has  increased 
from  week  to  week  since  the  completion  of  the  series 
in  November  last,  and  it  is  because  he  believes  that 
this  book  is  better  adapted  to  the  ordinary  reader 
than  any  other  with  which  he  is  acquainted,  and  be- 
cause he  wants  to  send  it  abroad  to  exert  the  strongest 
possible  influence  for  the  cause  of  truth  that  the 
publisher  has  purchased  of  the  author  the  copyright, 
and  now  puts  forth  the  sketches  in  this  attractive 
form. 

Ciacivn  ATI,  /anuary  15,  1883. 
(iii) 

682099 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 


These  sketches  are  not  drafts  upon  the  imagina- 
tion. They  are  simple  narratives  of  actual  incidents 
in  the  experience  of  the  writer  together  with  such  re- 
flections and  arguments  as  seemed  to  him  pertinent 
and  appropriate.  There  is  in  them  no  attempt  at 
fine  writing.  If  the  style  is  plain,  compact  and 
earnest,  so  was  the  somewhat  unique  experience  that 
gave  it  birth.  A  man  who  has  walked  amid  the 
flames  of  a  furnace  may  be  excused,  perhaps,  if  his 
account  of  the  adventure  lacks  the  genial  aimlessness 
of  an  amusing  fiction. 

But  however  strong  the  desire  to  make  the  truth 
of  God  evident  to  the  reader  of  these  pages,  the 
author  is  conscious  of  none  other  than  the  kindest 
feelings  toward  those  whose  views  and  practices  he 
is  obliged  to  condemn.  He  has  written,  not  to  de- 
nounce nor  to  offend,  but  to  convince,  and  if  possible, 
to  win  very  dear  brethren.  His  only  desire  is  to 
induce  Christian  brethren  to  walk  together  in  that 
unity  so  delightful  and  so  enduring;  the  unity  of 
obedience  to  Christ  as  King.  This  is  the  only  unity 
of  any  real  value.  The  unity  of  indifference,  now  so 
popular  in  many  quarters,  is  not  born  of  a  consuming 
love  of  the  truth — nor  does  it  tend  to  promote  the 

(iv) 


author's  preface.  V 

truth.  "The  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first  pure, 
then  peaceable"— peaceable  through  the  truth,  not 
at  the  expense  of  truth.  Such  wisdom  is  from  God, 
enthrones  God,  honors  him  above  all  else,  and  lifts 
the  soul  into  the  serene  atmosphere  of  divine  peace. 

That  these  pages  are  free  from  faults  and  blemishes 
the  author  dare  not  hope.  That  they  treat  the  subject 
exhaustively  he  does  not  claim.  But  that  they  treat 
it  with  fairness  and  Christian  candor  he  feels  quite 
assured. 

In  the  confident  hope  that  they  will  prove  helpful 
to  earnest,  inquiring  minds,  and  that  God  will  gra- 
ciously use  them  to  promote  the  "truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus,"  I  send  them  forth,  praying  that  the  blessing 
of  God  may  rest  upon  every  reader. 

F.  M.  Iams. 


CONTENTS. 

PAGB. 

No.  I.  "Only  a  Dedication,"  .  .  .  .  .7 
No.    2.   "Vot'sdeGood  of  It?"    ....  18 

No.    3.  *'  Let  Me  Alone," 32 

No.    4.  Lint  on  the  Nib,         .    '     .         .         .         .  45 

No.    5.   "Valid  Baptism," 59 

No.    6.  My  Resolution,  .         .         ...         .  73 

No.    7.  A  Presbyterian  Prophecy,       .         .         .         .86 

No.    8.  Those  German  Scholars 103 

No.    9.   "A  Grand  Book," I16 

No.  10.  Letting  Providence  Decide,        .        .        .         131 

No.  II.  A  Puzzled  Preacher, 144 

No.  12.  "  What  can  you  Plead  ?  "  ....  158 
No.  13.  "I  Never  Could  Understand,"  .  .  .191 
No.  14.  The  Final  Test, 214 


(vi) 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 


NUMBER  I. 


" //'j  only  a  Dedication.'' 

In  the  autumn  of  185-  I  accepted  the  unani- 
mous call  of  the  Congregational  Church  in  the 

village  of  T .     I  was  then  only  a  licentiate, 

but  the  next  spring,  after  due  examination  by  a 
Council  called  by  the  church,  I  was  solemnly 
ordained  to  the  full  work  of  the  gospel  ministry. 
I  entered  upon  the  sacred  duties  of  the  holy  call- 
ing, not  without  many  misgivings  respecting  my 
ability  to  discharge  them  properly,  and  yet  with 
a  joyous  and  earnest  consecration  of  heart,  in- 
tellect and  life  to  the  great  work. 

A  son  of  the  grand  old  University  of  B ,  I 

naturally  carried  with  me  into  the  sacred  desk 

something  of  the  vigorous,  indomitable  spirit  of 

(7) 


8  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

my  dear  old  Alma  Mater.  I  was  an  earnest 
student  of  books  rather  than  of  men,  and  of  ideas 
rather  than  books.  Nor  did  this  produce  a  drift 
of  thought  in  the  direction  of  the  visionary,  but 
rather  the  reverse.  My  intense  desire  to  do  good 
anchored  me  to  the  practical,  while  my  profound 
reverence  for  Bible  truth  made  me  an  earnest 
student  of  doctrines.  As  the  result,  my  preach- 
ing was  at  once  plain,  direct,  argumentative  and 
practical.  My  dear  people  were  constantly 
drawn  closer  to  me,  and  I  heartily  reciprocated 
their  confidence  and  affection,  and  we  soon  be- 
came almost  glued,  as  it  were,  into  one  harmoni- 
ous, inseparable  body. 

We  were  enthusiastic  Congregationalists.  Hop- 
kins, Bellamy  and  Dwight  were  our  oracles,  and 
Plymouth  Rock,  once  pressed  by  the  sacred  feet 
of  the  immaculate  old  Puritans,  was  our  beloved 
blarney-stone,  and  I  suppose  we,  half  uncon- 
sciously, pitied  those  poor,  unfortunate  churches 
which  have  no  Plymouth  Rock  to  fall  back  upon, 
nor  any  May  Flower  to  boast  of 

From  the  first  I  had  frequent  occasion  to 
baptize  infants,  and  I  always  did  it  properly, 
cheerfully  and  reverently,  and  to  the  edification 
of  all  concerned  in  it. 

Thus  matters  wore  a  pleasant  aspect,  and  as 
time  moved  on,  life  seemed  one  long,  cloudless. 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  p 

balmy  June  day,  laden  with  the  aroma  of  the 
sweetest  flowers,  and  enlivened  with  inspiring 
harmonies. 

But  there  came  a  change.  In  the  progress  of 
my  Bible  study  I  soon  found  myself  disturbed 
by  grave  doubts  respecting  the  scripturalness  of 
infant  baptism.  I  saw  clearly  that  the  baptism 
of  believers  was  enjoined  by  our  Lord,  and  that 
the  practice  of  the  apostles  accorded  with  that 
injunction. 

But  that  Christ  required  the  baptism  of  babes, 
or  that  the  apostles  practiced  such  baptism,  was 
not  so  clear.  I  tried  to  put  away  my  doubts, 
and  sometimes  I  succeeded  for  a  short  time,  but 
they  would  not  stay  put  away.  Often,  when  I 
least  expected  it,  they  would  return  in  full  force, 
and  give  me  no  little  trouble.  At  length  I  began 
to  look  into  our  usual  defenses  of  the  practice  a 
little  more  closely,  and  I  was  at  once  surprised, 
and  not  a  little  perplexed,  at  the  evident  and 
numerous  weaknesses  in  them.  This  greatly  in- 
creased my  gathering  doubts;  and,  as  if  to  add 
to  my  difficulties — though  she  knew  nothing  of 
them — a  good  sister  presented  her  young  child 
for  baptism,  I  was  in  a  most  painful  dilemma. 
I  could  not  well  refuse  to  baptize  the  babe — and 
yet  I  did  not  dare  to  baptize  it.  By  refusing  to 
baptize  it  I  would  probably  offend  and  grieve 


10  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

the  entire  church;  but  on  the  other  hand,  by- 
baptizing  it  I  might  offend  and  grieve  my  Master, 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church.  For ,  a  few  mo- 
ments I  did  not  know  what  to  do ;  there  seemed 
to  be  no  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  But  present- 
ly a  happy  thought  came  to  my  relief.  I  told 
the  mother  of  the  child  privately  that  I  had  late- 
ly come  to  have  some  doubts  about  infant  bap- 
tism, and  that  I  desired  her  to  delay  the  baptism 
of  her  babe  until  the  next  communion  season  (a 
period  of  two  months),  that  I  might  have  time 
to  examine  the  matter  more  fully.  I  also  re- 
quested her  to  say  nothing  about  my  doubts  to 
any  one.  These  requests  she  readily  granted, 
and  the  baptism  of  the  babe  was  postponed. 

During  the  next  two  months  I  studied  infant 
baptism  with  great  diligence,  but  with  very  little 
success,  I  could  not  quite  make  up  my  mind 
either  way,  and  as  the  next  communion  season 
was  at  hand,  I  was  obliged  to  ask  that  sister  for 
another  postponement  of  two  months.  This  she 
granted,  and  I  went  on  with  the  investigation. 
But  I  found  my  doubts  increasing  rapidly,  and 
at  the  next  communion  I  told  her  I  did  not  dare 
baptize  her  babe  then,  and  I  desired  another 
postponement,  which  she  readily  granted.  Con- 
tinuing my  examination  of  the  subject,  I  now 
became   fully  convinced,   to  my  great  dismay, 


BEHIND  >THE   SCENES.  II 

that  infant  baptism  has  no  warrant  in  the  Word 
of  God,  But  what  could  I  do?  If  I  gave  up 
infant  baptism,  I  must  also  give  up  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  to  which  I  firmly  believed  God  had 
called  me,  or  I  must  leave  my  people  and  be- 
come a  Baptist.  I  could  not  leave  the  ministry. 
I  must  continue  to  preach  the  gospel,  for  that 
duty  was  very  clear  and  very  urgent.  But  if  I 
rejected  infant  baptism,  I  could  not  remain  a 
Congregational  minister.  For,  although  we 
boasted  our  liberality,  and  allowed  the  greatest 
diversity  of  views  among  our  members,  we  were 
very  exacting  with  our  ministers.  No  man  could 
long  be  a  minister  among  us,  if  he  was  known 
to  reject  infant  baptism  or  sprinkling.  If  I  gave 
up  infant  baptism,  therefore,  I  must  leave  my 
church  and  go  to  the  Baptists.  But  I  could  not 
do  that,  for,  in  my  opinion,  they  were  a  narrow, 
bigoted  people  at  the  best,  and  I  hated  their 
horrible  close  communion.  I  was  now  in  very 
great  distress.     What  to  do  I  did  not  know. 

Three  things  were  becoming  very  clear  to  me : 
I  could  not  continue  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism, for  it  was  not  scriptural;  rejecting  it,  I 
could  not  remain  in  the  ministry  in  a  Congrega- 
tional Church.  In  any  event,  I  could  not  be  a 
Baptist.  It  was  also  evident  that  I  must  soon 
do  something  decisive.     I  had  secured  another 


12  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

postponement  of  the  baptism  of  that  babe,  and 
if  he  was  ever  to  have  the  benefit  of  infant  bap- 
tism, he  must  be  baptized  soon. 

I  now  remembered  having  heard  infant  bap- 
tism defended  as  a  pious  act  of  dedication — an 
act  in  which  the  parents  and  the  church  unitedly- 
presented  the  child  to  God,  covenanting  to  bring 
him  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord.  This  arrested  my  attention  and  impress- 
ed me  favorably.  In  common  with  my  brethren, 
I  had  already  come  to  look  upon  adult  baptism 
as  chiefly  a  solemn  self-dedication  of  the  bap- 
tized one  to  the  service  of  God.  I  had  been 
taught  that  this  dedication  was  indeed  the  only 
essential  thing  in  baptism.  This  put  the  whole 
question  before  me  in  a  new  light.  It  no  longer 
appeared  so  much  a  question  of  baptism  as  a 
pious  act  of  dedication.  I  knew  that,  practi- 
cally, all  pedobaptists  treat  infant  baptism  as  a 
nullity,  if  it  be  not  in  more  mature  years  fully 
adopted  and  confirmed  as  his  own  act,  by  the 
one  to  whom  it  has  been  administered.  And 
here,  evidently,  was  the  true  explanation  of  that 
fact.  They  regarded  the  infant  baptism  not  as 
a  baptism,  but  as  a  dedication — to  become  a  bap- 
tism only  when  accepted  as  such  by  the  grown-up 
child.  This  is  a  beautiful  and  flexible  arrange- 
ment.    I  apply  the  water  to  the  child  in  the 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  1 3 

name  of  the  Trinity;  yet  I  do  not  baptize  it, 
but  only  dedicate  it.  In  all  true  baptism  there 
must  be  the  intelligent  assen.t  of  the  subject. 
But  the  infant  does  not  and  can  not  give  such 
assent;  and  therefore,  while  he  is  dedicated  to 
God  in  the  solemn  formula  of  baptism,  he  is  not 
baptized.  An  essential  element — his  own  assent 
— is  lacking.  When,  in  after  years,  he  gives  that 
assent,  the  church  will  for  the  first  time  treat 
him  as  really  baptized.  Should  he  refuse  such 
assent,  the  church  would  refuse  to  regard  him 
as  baptized. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  I  do  not  baptize  him. 
I  only  dedicate  him,  and  he  afterward  takes  that 
dedication  and  makes  it  a  baptism.  The  dedica- 
tion is  my  act,  and  the  baptism  is  his  act.  If  the 
dedication  is  proper  I  am  all  right,  and  if  the 
baptism  is  wrong  it  is  his  fault. 

That  this  conclusion  is  correct  must  be  con- 
ceded by  every  pedobaptist.  For  the  ceremony 
of  confirmation  is  the  concluding  act  of  infant 
baptism — that  act  which  completes  it  and  makes 
it  baptism — if  anything  does.  Until  it  receives 
confirmation,  the  child  is  treated  by  the  church 
as  unbaptized.  The  Lord's  Supper  and  all  other 
church  privileges  are  denied  it,  but  at  and  after 
confirmation  they  are  at  once  accorded  to  it. 
The  only  possible  defense  the  church  can  set  up 


14  BEHIND    THE    SCENES. 

for  her  conduct  in  the  matter  is,  that  the  con- 
firmation completes  the  baptism — makes  it  valid 
— and  thus  entitles  the  child  to  all  the  privileges 
of  a  baptized  person.  Either  the  child  was  bap 
tized  by,  or  in  confirmation,  or,  having  been 
baptized  before,  it  was  basely  and  systematically 
robbed  of  its  most  sacred  religious  rights  by  the 
church.  The  truth  is,  that  confirmation  is  vir- 
tually a  confession  that  an  intelligent  personal 
assent  is  an  indispensable  element  of  baptism. 
It  is  true  this  confession  overturns  infant  bap- 
tism, by  recognizing  an  element  in  baptism  which 
is  impossible  to  all  infants.  But  the  confession 
is  a  true  and  healthy  one  for  all  that. 

Here  I  found  a  door  of  hope.  I  could  not 
baptize  an  infant ;  but  I  could  and  would  dedi- 
cate it ;  and  if,  in  after  years,  the  infant  chose 
to  convert  the  dedication  into  a  baptism,  that 
would  not  be  my  fault.  Accordingly  at  our 
next  communion  service,  I  told  my  church,  that 
I  could  no  longer  consent  to  baptize  infants, 
but  that  I  was  entirely  willing  to  dedicate  them 
to  God.  After  stating  my  new  views  briefly,  I 
told  the  church  that,  if  they  could  agree  with 
me  to  regard  the  service  not  as  a  baptism,  but 
simply  as  a  dedication,  we  could  still  go  on  to- 
gether; but  if  not,  we  must  separate.  I  invited 
any  one  who  might  desire  to  express  dissent  to 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  I J 

do  SO  at  once.  I  paused,  but  no  one  spoke  a 
single  word.  Then,  accepting  their  silence  as  a 
token  of  unanimous  assent  to  my  plan,  I  pro- 
ceeded to  dedicate  that  long  postponed  babe, 
using  the  old  baptismal  service — water,  words, 
and  all — not  omitting  a  single  thing.  I  said,  "I 
baptize  thee,"  etc.,  all  the  time  meaning,  I  ded- 
icate thee.  This  was  certainly  a  very  singular 
proceeding  in  many  respects,  and  I  have  often 
wondered  at  it  myself,  but  I  saw  nothing  im- 
proper in  it  at  that  time.  Indeed,  I  felt  very 
devout  and  happy,  and  my  people  seemed  to 
feel  so  too — which  only  indicates  how  unsafe  it 
is  to  take  our  feelings  as  a  criterion  of  duty. 

I  am  perfectly  sure,  now,  that  I  acted  consci- 
entiously in  the  whole  matter ;  but  the  trouble 
was  with  my  conscience.  It  was  honest  and 
active,  but  it  was  not  enlightened,  I  verily  be- 
lieved that  I  was  doing  God  service,  and  I  re- 
garded myself  as  really  a  person  of  some  con- 
siderable ability  and  shrewdness,  since  I  had  got 
out  of  such  an  exceedingly  tight  spot  in  a  way 
so  ingenious  and  creditable.  Still,  as  I  was  not 
without  an  occasional  fear  lest,  after  all,  it  might 
not  be  exactly  the  right  thing,  I  refrained  from 
boasting,  contenting  myself  with  a  little  private 
rejoicing,  that,  after  all,  I  could  remain  with  my 
dear  people.     And  so  for  some  years  I  went  on 


l6  BEHIND    THE   SCENES. 

dedicating  the  babes,  often  wincing  not  a  little 
at  the  stormy  doubts  which  persisted  in  gather- 
ing about  me,  more  and  more  as  time  advanced, 
and  which  did  not  cease  their  assaults  until  I 
ceased  to  say,  "It's  only  a  dedication." 

Indeed,  I  felt  very  devout  and  happy,  and 
my  people  seemed  to  feel  so  too — which  only 
indicates  how  unsafe  it  is  to  take  our  feelings  as 
a  criterion  of  duty. 

And  yet  our  feelings  are  not  to  be  ignored  or 
despised.  They  have  their  legitimate  uses — uses 
beautiful  and  beneficent.  They  are  the  "juices 
of  life,"  if  the  expression  may  be  permitted, 
converting  otherwise  dry  and  dreary  wastes  into 
fertile  fields,  full  of  springing  buds  and  ripening 
fruits.  They  are  the  chief  motive  power  in  mul- 
titudes of  human  hearts  and  Hves,  and,  it  may 
be,  an  inseparable  factor  in  all  right  moral  action. 

But  our  feelings,  while  they  are  grand  servants, 
helping  us  in  a  thousand  ways,  are  miserable 
guides. 

The  truth  is,  they  have  no  eyes — they  are 
blind — and  unaided  by  the  mind,  they  are  quite 
as  apt  to  go  in  a  wrong  direction  as  in  the  way 
of  right.  If  one  has  a  mistaken  idea  of  duty, 
and  lives  up  to  that  idea,  he  will  feel  happy 
over  it  until  he  discovers  his  mistake.  And  if 
that  man  makes  feeling  his  test  of  duty  and  of 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  1/ 

right,  he  may  go  on  many  years  in  positive 
wrong-doing  without  knowing  it ;  or  in  the  utter 
and  even  contemptuous  neglect  of  urgent  duty 
without  so  much  as  once  suspecting  it. 

Nor  is  it  enough  that  we  be  conscientious. 
We  may  be  very  conscientious,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  be  very  far  from  right.  The  treacherous 
Thug  is  conscientious,  rcHgiously  so,  in  his  foul 
work  of  assassination.  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  a 
conscientious  persecutor  of  the  Church  of  God. 
Doubtless,  the  grim  judges  of  the  Inquisition 
were  conscientious.  It  is  not  enough  to  say, 
"I  have  the  approval  of  my  conscience "  in  doing 
this  or  that.  The  Word  of  God  is  the  supreme 
rule  of  right,  and  we  are  safe  only  when  feeling 
and  conscience  are  conformed  to  that  divine  rule. 

I  am  perfectly  sure,  now,  that  I  acted  consci- 
entiously in  the  whole  matter;  but  the  trouble 
was  with  my  conscience. 

2 


1 8  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 


NUMBER  II. 


**To  pe  sure  you  can ;  and  if  you  can't,  vofs  de 
good  of  it  1" 

One  day,  while  pastor  of  the  church  in  the 

village  of  T ,  I  was  walking  in  the  country, 

at  a  distance  of  several  miles  from  home.  As 
I  was  passing  a  plain,  neat  farm-house,  the  door 
opened  and  a  woman  came  out  and  hailed  me. 
She  was  the  farmer's  wife,  a  tidy  German  woman, 
whom  I  had  met  not  long  before  at  a  country 
wedding. 

Coming  toward  the  gate,  she  said :   "Pees  you 

de  minister  at  T ?"     I  confessed  that  I  was. 

Then  she  asked  anxiously,  "Does  you  paptize 
papies?"  I  acknowledged  that  I  was  in  the 
habit  of  doing  so.  Then  she  came  to  business 
at  once  in  these  words:  "Veil,  den,  I  vants  you 
to  come  right  in,  and  paptize  my  dree  leetle 
vuns."  I  told  her  how  glad  I  would  be  to 
comply  with  her  request,  were  it  proper  to  do 
so.  I  then  carefully  explained  the  nature  of  the 
ceremony ;  that  it  was  a  covenant  between  the 
parents  of  the  children  and  the  church,  in  which 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  I9 

they,  together,  gave  the  children  to  the  Lord, 
and  agreed  to  train  them  up  "in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord;"  whence  it  was  neces- 
sary that  it  should  be  observed  in  the  presence 
of  the  church,  and  that  at  least  one  of  the  par- 
ents should  be  a  member  of  the  church.  I  in- 
vited her  to  bring  her  children  to  our  meeting 
in  the  village,  to  unite  with  the  church  henself, 
and  then  to  have  her  little  ones  baptized. 

I  was  astonished  at  the  effect  of  my  quiet 
matter-of-fact  words.  "Ah,  no,"  she  cried,  "it 
pees  a  long  vay  to  de  town,  and  ve  got  no  team. 
It  pees  a  long  time  pefore  ve  can  come  to  de 
town ;  and  maype  de  poor  leetle  tings  die,  mit 
no  paptism,  an  den  dey  perish  shoost  like  de 
peasts  of  the  field;  dey  got  no  soul,  no  immor- 
tality, no  eternal  life,  'cause  dey  not  paptized!" 

It  was  a  cry  of  anguish.  All  her  mother  heart 
seemed  compressed  into  her  poor  broken  words. 
Her  voice  was  tremulous  with  feeling,  and  every 
word  seemed  drenched  in  tears. 

Evidently  she  was  terribly  in  earnest,  and  re- 
garded the  baptism  of  her  children  as  a  matter 
of  the  highest  moment,  involving  their  eternal 
destiny.  It  was  a  fearful  revelation  to  me.  I 
had  read  much  about  such  distorted  views  of 
baptism,  but  they  had  always  seemed  to  me  so 
exaggerated  and  impossible  that  I  liad  regarded 


20  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

them  rather  as  the  wild  vagaries  of  crack-brained 
theorists,  than  as  the  actual  convictions  of  men 
and  women  in  real  life.    But  here  I  was  suddenly 
confronted  by  an  earnest,    misguided   mother, 
pleading  for  baptism  at  my  hands,  to  save  her 
own  dear  babes  from  eternal  death.     Was  ever 
any  pagan  superstition  worse  than  that?     I  was 
amazed,  shocked,  and,  for  a  few  moments,  thor- 
oughly upset.      As  soon  as  I  could  rally  my  be- 
wildered wits,  I  tried  to  convince  her  that  she 
greatly  overestimated  baptism;   that  it  had  no 
such  saving  virtue,  and  that  her  children  would 
not  be  lost  for  want  of  it,  even  if  they  should 
die  without  it.      But  the  training  and  prejudices 
of  a  lifetime  were  not  to  be  overcome  in  an  hour. 
I  could  make  no  impression  upon  her  citadel  of 
superstition.     At  length,  in  very  desperation,  I 
cried  out:   "Do  you  really  think  I  can  give  your 
children  immortality,  eternal  life,  by  putting  a 
little  water  on  them?" 

Her  answer  came  swift,  strong,  and  utterly 
confounding  to  all  half-way  pedobaptists — "To 
pe  sure  you  can ;  and  if  you  can't,  vots  de  good 
of  it?" 

Finding  that  I  could  not  change  her  views  of 
the  efficacy  of  baptism,  I  declined  to  baptize  her 
little  ones  under  any  circumstances. 

I  went  home  in  a  brown  study,  her  bold,  incisive 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  21 

and  rigidly  logical  question — "  Vof  s  de  good  of 
ttf — ringing  in  my  ears  at  a  fearful  rate.  And, 
day  after  day,  that  same  question — "Voi's  de 
good  of  itf' — would  pop  up  everywhere,  like 
some  irrepressible  imp,  meeting  me  at  every  turn 
^grinning  at  me  from  every  nook  and  cranny 
—  mocking  at  me  in  all  possible  ways — but  ever 
growing  bolder  and  more  urgent  and  more  im- 
perious. I  could  neither  escape  it,  nor  banish 
it,  nor  answer  it. 

At  length  I  reluctantly  confessed  myself  van- 
quished, and  gave  up  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism— a  practice  which  God  has  not  enjoined — 
a  practice  which  no  man  can  defend,  except  by 
the  false  pretense  that  there  is  in  it  some  hidden, 
saving  efficacy — some  secret  power  to  save  the 
soul.  "Vot's  de  good  of  it?"  sure  enough. 
Who  can  tell?  What  is  the  good  of  it?  What 
has  it  ever  done?  What  of  blessing  has  it  ever 
conferred  on  the  church,  the  world  or  the  fam- 
ily? How  has  it  ever  benefited  one  of  its  un- 
conscious subjects  ?  It  has  done  evil  enough — 
and  the  evil  it  has  done  is  evident  enough — but 
what  good  has  it  ever  done  ?  Ask  history,  and 
she  will  point  to  the  darkest  of  her  many  blood- 
stained pages,  and  tell  you  these  are  the  records 
of  its  evil  deeds.  It  brought  the  world  into  the 
church,   unregenerate,   godless,  impenitent.     It 


22  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

introduced  into  the  church  the  men  who  invent- 
ed the  Papacy,  the  men  who  contrived  its  ma- 
chinery, the  men  who  fostered  its  corruptions, 
the  men  whose  unholy  ambitions  developed  its 
fearful  power. 

It  is  not  the  child  but  the  mother  of  the  Pa- 
pacy. It  existed  before  the  Papacy,  and  its 
existence  made  the  Papacy  possible.  It  is  the 
mother  and  conservator  of  every  State  Church 
on  earth.  It  is  the  one  thing  indispensable  to 
every  State  Church.  It  keeps  alive  all  State 
Churches  to-day,  with  all  their  festering  cor- 
ruptions. Take  it  away,  and  Romanism  would 
die  in  a  single  generation.  Abolish  it,  and  you 
abolish  Episcopacy  in  England  and  Lutheranism 
in  Germany.  Abolish  it,  and  you  make  perse- 
cution for  religious  opinions  forever  impossible 
among  the  professed  disciples  of  Christ.  Infant 
baptism  and  persecution  were  absolutely  insep- 
arable for  more  than  thirteen  hundred  years. 
Only  such  churches  as  cherished  infant  baptism 
have  been  guilty  of  the  great  sin  of  persecution. 
And  of  all  those  churches  only  one,  the  Meth- 
odist, can  rise  up  and  truthfully  say,  we  have 
never  persecuted.  That  Church  "retains"  infant 
baptism,  but  so  carelessly  and  illogically,  that  it 
has  never  had  its  legitimate  influence  on  her 
spirit  and  life,     From  the  first,  Methodism,  with 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  2$ 

a  happy  inconsistency,  has  practically  ignored 
infant  baptism,  while  retaining  it,  insisting  on  a 
converted  membership  in  all  her  classes,  thus 
keeping  herself,  in  a  large  measure,  free  from  its 
debasing  influences. 

The  evil  that  infant  baptism  has  done  is  writ- 
ten in.  letters  of  blood  on  almost  every  page  of 
the  history  of  Christendom,  and  on  myriads  of 
wronged  human  hearts ;  but  the  good  that  it  has 
done  is  written — where?  Alas,  echo  answers 
always  and  only — where  ?  Go  through  the  world 
and  search  it  out ;  find  it  if  you  can ;  measure 
it  soberly  by  the  divine  Word ;  weigh  it  in  the 
scales  of  divine  truth,  and  then  publish  it  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth. 

But  if  you  find  no  good,  but  only  evil,  and 
that  continually;  if  you  find  many  thousands, 
like  that  poor  German  mother,  depending  upon 
infant  baptism  to  save  their  children;  if  you 
find  scores  of  thousands  trusting  in  their  own 
baptism  in  infancy  to  save  them;  if  you  find 
multitudes  thus  blinded  groping  in  the  dark- 
ness, and  kept  away  from  Christ  by  it ;  if  you 
find  it  the  chief  prop  of  Romanism,  of  all  State 
Churches,  of  all  ecclesiastical  usurpations,  tyr- 
annies, persecutions  and  corruptions — then  be 
assured  it  is  not  of  God,  but  of  antichrist,  and 
that  no  man  can  be  innocent  in  the  sight  of  Je- 


24  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

hovah  who  contributes  by  his  influence  to  per- 
petuate it. 

"Vot's  de  good  of  itf  Suppose  you  go 
through  this  land  proposing  this  same  question 
in  every  church  where  infant  baptism  is  prac- 
ticed, and  note  the  astonishing  variety  of  re- 
plies. 

One  tells  you  that  it  is  a  testimony  to  the  good- 
ness of  human  nature,  that  it  certifies  the  holi- 
ness of  infancy,  and  assures  us  that  the  evil 
within  us  is  outweighed  and  overborne  by  the 
good ;  but  another  tells  you  that  it  is  a  solemn 
witness  to  our  depravity,  assuming  it  to  be  so 
great  that  even  unconscious  babes  imperatively 
need  the  washing  of  regeneration  in  the  bap- 
tismal laver,  to  put  away  the  corruption  of  orig- 
inal sin.  You  repeat  the  question,  and  you  are 
told  by  one  that  the  baptism  is  a  recognition  of 
the  membership  of  the  babe  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,  by  virtue  of  its  Christian  parentage;  while 
another  gravely  assures  you  that  the  baptism 
makes  it  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
into  which,  he  tells  you,  no  one,  not  even  the 
children  of  Christian  parents,  can  enter  without 
being  baptized ;  while  still  another  informs  you 
that  the  baptized  babe  is  not  in  the  church  at 
all. 

You  move  on,   a  little  confused,  and  repeat 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  2$ 

the  inquiry,  and  one  hastens  to  reply  that  the 
baptism  washes  away  original  sin ;  another  that 
it  regenerates  the  child,  and  makes  him  a  mem- 
ber of  Christ's  kingdom,  a  subject  of  his  grace, 
and  an  heir  of  heaven;  while  another  assures 
you  that  it  has  no  effect  whatever  upon  the  babe, 
but  expends  all  its  force  for  good  upon  the  par- 
ents and  the  church. 

This  staggers  you  somewhat,  but  again  you 
move  on,  in  a  dazed  sort  of  way,  and  reverently 
ask:  "  Vofs  the  good  of  it?"  A  solemn  voice 
replies,  "It  secures  to  the  babe  all  the  benefits 
of  the  covenant  of  grace;"  but  another  voice, 
equally  solemn,  assures  you  that  it  is  not  so, 
that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  sort  of  cove- 
nant, gracious  or  otherwise,  but  that  it  is  a  di- 
vine institution,  "in  the  same  sense  that  an  ox- 
yoke  is;"  but  another  voice,  equally  solemn, 
interrupts,  informing  you  that  there  is  neither 
covenant  nor  ox-yoke  about  it,  but  an  aesthetic 
an4  sentimental  beauty,  very  pleasing  to  the 
proud  and  happy  parents. 

This  sunflower  theology  may  puzzle  you  a 
little,  but  go  on  and  press  your  problem,  and 
other  voices  will  greet  you  with  replies  far  harder 
to  digest.  One  tells  you  that  every  babe  that 
dies  unbaptized  goes  down  into  the  pit ;  that  no 
human  being,  youn^^  or  old,  dying  without  bap- 


26  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

t'lsm,  can  be  saved.  Another  assures  you  that  he 
rejects  with  loathing  a  doctrine  so  horrible ;  but 
that  by  baptism  the  infant  is  made  a  partaker  of 
the  "covenanted  mercies  of  God,"  so  that  his 
salvation  is,  in  a  manner,  thereby  assured. 

Thus  the  defense  of  infant  baptism  is  a  theo- 
logical "Tower  of  Babel,"  a  veritable  "confusion 
of  tongues,"  imperiling  the  peace  and  sanity  of 
every  honest  inquirer  after  the  truth.  Men  of 
views  the  most  contradictory  practice  this  un- 
scriptural  rite  in  search  of  benefits  to  the  last 
degree  imaginary,  and  for  reasons  the  most  an- 
tagonistic and  irreconcilable. 

If  the  subject  were  not  so  grave,  it  would  be 
very  amusing  to  witness  the  deliberations  of  a 
great  convention  of  learned  and  pious  pedobap- 
tist  divines,  engaged  in  the  awful  task  of  fram- 
ing a  respectable  and  official  reply  to  this  little, 
rustic-looking,  but  dangerous  and  monitor-like 
problem,  "  Vbfs  the  good  of  itf 

Long  before  they  could  agree  upon  a  defi- 
nite answer,  there  would  be  such  a  "Babel  of 
tongues  "  among  them  that  the  convention  would 
explode  in  "holy  wrath,"  while  the  uncircum- 
cised  spectator  would  also  explode,  but  in  guile- 
less merriment. 

Just  imagine  such  a  convention  in  session, 
engaged  in  the  mighty  deliberation.     Here  are 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  2J 

Catholic  and  Episcopalian,  Lutheran  and  Presby- 
terian, Reformed  and  Congregational  and  Meth- 
odist, conferring  together  about  the  benefits  of 
a  practice  common  to  all  of  them. 

They  are  all  ardent  but  discordant  devotees 
of  infant  baptism.  The  reverend  chairman  states 
the  question  in  words  so  brief,  they  might  be 
defined  the  soul  of  wit: 

"  My  brethren — Doubtless  we  all  love  infant 
baptism  dearly ;  it  is  such  a  blessing  to  the  little 
dears.  And  we  all  practice  it  most  reverently, 
as  is  fitting  in  men  so  reverend.  But  we  have 
fallen  on  evil  times.  There  are  uneasy  souls 
abroad  who  question  its  utility,  and  they  meet 
us  at  every  turn  with  questions  hard  to  answer. 
Pressed  by  them  on  all  sides,  we  have  met  in 
this  great  and  wise  convention  to  discuss  the 
matter  freely,  and,  if  possible,  to  frame  a  con- 
clusive and  official  answer  to  this  annoying  prob- 
lem, 'Vot's  de  good  of  it?     Brethren,  proceed," 

"Vot's  de  good  of  it?"  cries  the  Catholic 
priest.  "Why,  sir,  it  is  a  saving  sacrament. 
It  confers  salvation,  and  without  it,  the  dying 
babe  is  certainly  lost.  If  unbaptized,  it  is  only 
heathen,  and  its  dead  body  can  not  have  inter- 
ment in  a  Catholic  burying-ground,  nor  its  soul 
admission  into  heaven.  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
Holy  Church." 


28  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

"  Ah,"  says  the  Episcopalian,  "you  are  right, 
brother  Catholic.  I  fully  agree  with  you,  in  a 
manner.  Or  rather — well  no,  I  don't.  Of  course, 
the  baptism  makes  the  child  a  Christian  and 
saves  it,  and  equally  of  course  without  the  bap- 
tism it  is  lost,  and  a  person  who  is  lost  is  only  a 
heathen,  and  has  no  right  to  burial  in  a  Christian 
cemetery.  All  that  is  true,  as  you  say,  and  as 
I  profess  to  believe,  but  it  sounds  harsh,  and  our 
people  have  a  habit  of  reading  and  of  thinking  for 
themselves.  For  this  reason  I  do  not  agree  with 
you,  but  consider  you  very  heterodox  and  super- 
stitious in  this  matter;  but  it  is  all  right  between 
ourselves." 

"Of  course,"  says  the  Lutheran,  "you  are 
both  right,  and  I  agree  with  both  of  you.  We 
have  the  true  Catholic  doctrine  in  our  creed,  but 
our  people  are  a  little  peculiar,  too,  and  we  are 
obliged,  now  and  then,  to  pass  a  resolution  in 
our  Synods,  denying  the  evident  import  of  our 
creed  on  this  subject,  just  to  keep  the  peace  in 
our  Church.  But  I  fully  agree  with  both  of  you, 
and  also  with  everybody  else.  It's  a  saving 
ordinance,  but  there's  no  real  good  in  it," 

"  Hold  on,"  cries  the  Presbyterian,  "you  are 
all  three  utterly  wrong,  and  I  can  not  agree  with 
you  at  all.  Infant  baptism  has  no  saving  virtue 
at  all,  not  a  bit  of  it,  and  you   ought  to   be 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  2g 

ashamed  to  pretend  that  it  has.  For  my  part,  I 
hold  that  it  makes  the  babe  a  Christian,  and  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  secures  to 
him  all  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace.  Of 
course,  this  amounts  to  the  same  thing  as  your 
doctrine,  but  it  is  not  expressed  in  such  a  plain, 
gross  way ;  but  the  great  difference  is  that  my 
doctrine  is  true,  and  yours  is  not.  But,  to  tell 
the  whole  truth,  this  infant  baptism  is  a  childish 
thing,  at  best,  and  I  wish  we  were  rid  of  it." 

"Oh,  horrors!"  cries  the  Reformed,  "that  is 
too  bad.  Infant  baptism  is  the  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant, and  its  value  can  not  be  measured,  for  it 
makes  the  babe  a  partaker  of  the  divine  grace, 
and  assures  its  final  salvation.  It  is  a  most 
blessed  institution,  the  hope  of  the  Church,  her 
nursery,  as  it  were.  I  would  not  give  it  up  for 
all  the  world,  but,  of  course,  it  is  not  a  saving 
ordinance.  Nobody  believes  in  saving  ordinances 
except  the  Baptists,  who  fight  infant  baptism  all 
the  time,  declaring  there  is  no  authority  for  it 
and  no  virtue  in  it." 

"Well,"  says  the  Methodist,  "if  you  are  go- 
ing to  give  it  to  the  Baptists  that's  all  right,  and 
I  will  help  you ;  but  as  for  infant  baptism,  Mr. 
Wesley  expressly  says  that  it  washes  away 
original  sin,  and  of  course  we  believe  what  he 
says.     I  confess  that  it  seems  to  me  that  what- 


30  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

ever  washes  away  original  sin  must  save  the  soul; 
but  then  we  do  not  hold  to  anything  in  particu- 
lar on  this  subject.  We  think  it  is  best  to  baptize 
infants  and  run  as  little  risk  as  possible.  You 
all  lay  too  much  stress  on  it.  See  here,  we  are 
in  the  main  agreed  about  infant  baptism,  but  do 
not  make  its  virtues  too  prominent,  or  those 
Baptists  will  get  after  us,  and  make  it  quite  too 
warm  for  us.  Just  be  non-committal  about  it. 
'  Retain '  it  in  your  churches  as  we  do,  and  let 
every  fellow  find  out  'vots  de  good  ofitf  for  him- 
self." 

"For  shame!"  cries  the  Congregationalist, 
"such  double-dealing  is  too  bad.  There  is  no 
virtue  in  infant  baptism,  none  at  all ;  but  it  is 
useful,  and  would  be  a  great  deal  more  useful 
than  it  is,  if  those  Baptists  would  only  let  us 
alone.  It  secures  the  benefits  of  the  covenant 
of  grace  to  the  child,  and  that  virtually  assures 
his  salvation;  but  of  course  he  would  be  just  as 
well  off  without  it.  But  it  enables  us  to  call  him 
a  child  of  the  Church,  and  if  we  can  make  him 
believe  it,  we  can  keep  him  from  going  off  with 
the  Baptists.  But  of  late  our  people  are  giving 
it  up  at  a  fearful  rate,  and  we  are  likely  soon  to 
become  just  like  the  Baptists  in  this  matter.  I 
tell  you  infant  baptism  is  a  bother,  and  a  con- 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  31 

stant  puzzle,  and  I  algiost  wish  we  had  never 
heard  of  it. " 

Now,  this  may  seem  like  a  caricature  at  first 
glance,  but  the  sober  second  thought  will  con- 
vince you  that  it  is  painfully  true  to  life,  and  it 
absolutely  does  no  injustice  to  our  pedobaptist 
friends,  as  they  will  confess,  if  they  read  up  their 
own  authors  faithfully. 

Do  not  turn  away  and  say,  "Oh,  it  is  no 
matter,"  and  then  give  your  influence  to  support 
it  blindly.  Such  conduct  is  unworthy  a  Christian 
man.  If  you  love  Christ,  you  love  the  truth, 
for  he  is  the  truth,  and  all  truth  is  of  him  and 
from  him,  and  every  several  ray  of  truth  leads 
back  to  him. 

It  is  our  business  as  Christians  to  search  for 
truth  as  for  hidden  treasures,  and,  having  found  it, 
to  honor  it  and  confess  it,  and  show  it  to  others. 
It  is  truth,  and  truth  alone,  that  can  make  us 
free  from  error.  If  you  are  a  Baptist,  let  your 
Baptist  light  shine  out  brightly  and  widely ;  and 
if  you  are  not  a  Baptist,  muster  up  a  little  cour- 
age and  look  into  infant  baptism  for  yourself, 
and  do  not  rest  satisfied  until  you  have  answered 
this  crucial  question,  ' '  Vots  de  good  of  it?  " 


32  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 


NUMBER  III. 


''Let  Me  Alone:' 

While  residing  in  the  village  of  T ,  hav- 
ing occasion  to  visit  a  distant  city,  on  my  way 
home  I  stopped  over  Sabbath  with  an  old  friend. 
There  was  a  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  neigh- 
borhood, and  I  attended  worship  there.  After 
delivering  an  able  sermon  to  a  large,  intelligent 
and  appreciative  audience,  the  pastor  invited 
such  parents  and  friends  as  desired  to  have  their 
children  baptized  to  bring  them,  forward.  In 
response  to  that  invitation  several  persons  arose 
and  approached  the  pulpit,  carrying  or  leading 
children  of  various  ages,  from  the  babe  of  three 
or  four  weeks  to  the  rather  large  child  of  ten  or 
twelve  years. 

Beginning  with  the  younger  ones,  the  pastor 
proceeded  to  administer  the  ordinance  in  the 
usual  manner,  and  without  any  marked  opposi- 
tion, until  he  reached  the  last  one,  a  bright  boy 
of  some  ten  or  twelve  years.  Several  little  girls 
had,  indeed,  exhibited  much  fear,  but  under 
strong  parental   influence  they  had  finally  sub- 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  33 

mitted  to  the  rite,  if  not  reverently,  at  least 
tremblingly.  Some  little  boys  had  exhibited 
signs  of  great  discontent,  but  after  a  few  struggles 
they  had  accepted  the  inevitable,  with  no  more 
tokens  of  aversion  than  they  might  have  exhibited 
if  about  to  be  vaccinated.  Meantime  the  last 
boy  in  the  row  watched,  with  an  interest  pain- 
fully intense,  every  movement  of  minister  and 
child. 

When  his  turn  came  he  was  almost  wild  with 
fear.  As  the  tall,  venerable  minister  approached 
him  he  tried  to  break  away  ;  but  his  father  held 
him  so  firmly  he  could  not.  Finding  he  must 
remain,  he  instantly  changed  his  tactics,  spring- 
ing forward  and  kicking  the  minister's  shins  with 
great  vigor,  crying  with  every  kick :  ' '  Let  me 
alone !  Let  me  alone ! "  His  father,  having  a 
little  girl  in  his  right  arm,  found  it  very  difficult 
to  manage  the  boy  with  one  hand.  Meantime 
the  boy  contrived  to  plant  several  effective  kicks 
on  the  ministerial  shins,  so  effective,  indeed, 
that  the  owner  of  the  shins  vvas  glad  to  retreat 
out  of  his  reach. 

Suddenly  the  father,  with  a  facial  expression 
not  in  the  highest  degree  saintly,  jerked  the  boy 
back  several  steps.  The  minister  immediately 
advanced  with  all  boldness,  with  the  sacred  water 
sparkling  on  the  tips  of  his  fingers,  but  just  as 
3 


34  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

he  was  about  to  apply  it  to  the  boy's  head, 
down  went  the  head  and  up  went  the  heels  be- 
longing to  it,  colliding  with  those  dear,  vener- 
able shins  in  a  most  painful  way,  while  the  walls 
in  the  sacred  edifice  resounded  with  the  cry: 
"Let  me  alone!  Let  me  alone!"  Again  the 
prudent  minister  beat  a  hasty  retreat. 

The  father,  a  powerful  man,  was  now  thorough- 
ly aroused.  With  a  midnight  frown  and  a  mighty 
wrench  he  brought  that  boy  upon  hi?  feet.  In- 
stantly the  minister  approached,  and  bending 
over  (he  was  very  tall)  he  managed  to  get  some 
two  or  three  drops  of  water  on  the  devoted  head 
of  that  belligerent  boy,  who,  in  impotent  rage, 
was  kicking  toward  his  ghostly  benefactor,  and 
screaming  his  favorite  scream :  "  Let  me  alone  ! 
Let  me  alone ! !  Let  me  alone  ! ! !  "  As  the  last 
scream  was  solemnly  and  beautifully  punctuated 
by  the  official  Amen,  which  ended  and  confirmed 
the  baptismal  formula,  and  the  minister,  with  a 
serene,  cheerful  countenance,  re-entered  the 
sacred  desk  to  close  the  services,  I  felt — well, 
my  feelings  were  considerably  mixed.  To  be 
perfectly  frank  about  it,  I  had  some  rather  un- 
sanctified  feelings  just  then.  In  the  first  place, 
I  always  did  sympathize  with  the  "under  dog," 
especially  when  the  odds  against  him  were  very 
great.     My  carnal  nature  always  would  rise  up 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  35 

and  demand  fair  play.  Two  men,  and  one  of 
them  a  minister,  against  one  poor  little  boy  did 
seem  too  much,  and  I  fear  I  inwardly  rejoiced  at 
the  boy's  wonderful  grit. 

Another  feeling  was  very  strong  upon  me.  I 
was,  for  the  moment,  fairly  ashamed  of  infant  bap- 
tism. "Is  it  possible,"  thought  I,  "that  such 
an  institution  is  of  God?  Is  it  really  his  will 
that  children  shall  be  forced  by  human  authority 
to  accept  the  badge  of  a  Christian  profession 
against  their  earnest  protest?"  However,  I 
soon  comforted  myself  with  the  reflection  that 
this  was  an  exceptional  case ;  and  I  persuaded 
myself  that  very  few  ministers  could  be  found 
willing  to  proceed  with  the  baptism  under  similar 
circumstances. 

But,  after  all,  let  me  not  be  unjust.  Wherein 
was  it  really  worse  to  baptize  that  boy  against 
his  fierce  protest  than  to  baptize  the  helpless, 
unconscious  babe  that  could  not  protest,  putting 
upon  it  a  yoke  which,  in  after  years,  may  be- 
come a  galling,  intolerable  burden  ? 

All  over  this  land,  to-day,  are  weary  hearts 
hindered  from  obedience  to  Christ,  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  by  the  specter  of  that  christen- 
ing received  in  infancy ;  in  some  cases,  perhaps, 
at  my  hands.  I  know  an  earnest,  devoted  lady 
— a  true  disciple  of  the  Master — to  whom  her 


36  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

baptism  in  infancy  has  been  for  years  a  source 
of  deep  sorrow.  She  can  not  speak  of  it  with' 
out  tears ;  yet  she  does  not  dare  be  baptized, 
lest  in  so  doing  she  may  possibly  do  wrong. 
And  she  is  but  one  of  thousands  who  suffer  in 
the  same  way  and  for  the  same  reason.  When 
christened,  they  were  not  old  enough  to  protest 
as  that  boy  did,  but  they  were  every  whit  as 
grossly  outraged  as  he. 

And  yet,  let  us  be  just ;  for  if  infant  baptism 
is  indeed  of  God,  my  friend  did  right  in  baptiz- 
ing that  boy,  in  spite  of  his  kicks  and  screams. 
If  God  says  do  it,  then  do  it  we  must,  whether 
children  are  willing  or  unwilling.  The  will  of 
the  child  and  the  happiness  of  the  man  are  never 
to  be  set  up  against  a  command  of  God.  And 
when  God  says  do  it,  what  right  has  the  parent 
to  say,  no,  you  shall  not  do  it?  Can  the  will  of 
the  parent  annul  the  authority  of  God  ?  Why 
should  a  minister  desist  from  a  duty  which  God 
enjoins,  even  at  the  bidding  of  the  parent  ?  Is  it 
right  to  obey  a  parent,  rather  than. God  ?  Where 
has  God  given  the  parent  power  to  set  aside  his 
solemn  ordinances  ?  Or  where  has  he  authorized 
his  ministers  to  waive  the  adminstration  of  those 
ordinances  at  the  behest  of  any  parent  ?  Echo 
answers,  where  ?  where  ? 

Protestant  ministers  who  defend  infant  baptism 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  3/ 

as  a  divine  institution,  may  well  ponder  these 
far-reaching  questions.  I  have  a  right  to  say  to 
them,  ' '  Gentlemen,  why  do  you  disobey  God  in 
this  matter?  If  he  commands  you  to  do  it,  why 
do  you  not  do  it  ?  Some  of  you  insist  that  when 
Jesus  said,  '  Go,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,'  he  meant  baptizing  all  children,  as  well 
as  parents.  But  you  do  not  do  that.  The  home- 
less bootblack  on  the  street  is  a  child,  and  as 
much  a  member  of  the  nation,  as  the  proud  scion 
of  the  millionaire,  yet  you  do  not  baptize  him. 
Why  not  ?  In  that  wretched  hovel  is  a  sweet, 
innocent  babe,  a  daughter  of  poverty  and  woe ; 
her  father  is  a  drunken  outcast,  and  her  mother 
is  an  ignorant,  irreligious,  but  almost  broken- 
hearted woman.  If  your  construction  of  Christ's 
words  be  the  true  one,  he  has  commanded  you 
to  baptize  that  babe  as  truly  as  the  daughter  of 
your  well-to-do  deacon.  Why  have  you  not 
done  it  ?  " 

Now,  allow  me  to  speak  plainly.  Either  you 
do  not  believe  your  own  construction  of  our 
Lord's  words,  or  you  are  guilty  of  openly  con- 
temning his  authority.  This  dilemma  has  just 
two  horns,  as  you  perceive,  and  one  or  the  other 
you  must  take.  Which  do  you  prefer  ?  If  the 
former,  you  are  found  guilty  of  bearing  false 
witness  against  the  Master.     If  the  latter,  you 


38  BEHIND    THE    SCENES. 

are  convicted  of  rank  disobedience  to  his  com- 
mand. It  matters  little  which  one  you  take ; 
either  one  impales  you.  As  the  boy  is  said  to 
have  told  the  traveler  respecting  two  very  bad 
roads,  '  *  No  matter,  stranger,  which  one  you 
take ;  you  will  soon  wish  you  had  taken  the 
other!"  Now,  gentlemen,  look  this  matter  in 
the  face  squarely,  and  harmonize  your  practice 
with  your  creed,  if  you  can.  It  will  not  do  to 
throw  the  blame  of  a  neglect  of  infant  baptism 
on  the  parent.  That  is  very  commonly  done, 
but  without  good  reason.  Ministers  of  the 
gospel  are  certainly  commanded  to  baptize  all 
who  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  wherever 
they  labor  in  the  gospel.  The  command  is  ex- 
plicit: "Go,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them." 
This  can  not  mean  less  than  that  they  shall  baptize 
all  who  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  in  the 
place  where  they  are  teaching  or  preaching.  If, 
then,  infants  are  to  be  baptized ;  if  they  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism ;  if  God  actually  re- 
quires that  they  be  baptized,  the  ministers  are 
commanded  by  our  Lord  himself  to  baptize  them, 
since  they  are  commanded  to  baptize  all  who 
are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  and  from  this 
there  is  no  escape. 

If  the  infant,  unconscious  and  involuntary,  is, 
indeed,  a  proper  subject  of  baptism,  then  has  the 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  39 

minister  no  choice  in  the  matter ;  he  must  bap- 
tize him,  and  the  neglect  or  indifference,  or  even 
the  opposition,  of  the  parent,  can  not  excuse 
him.  Only  such  forcible  interference  as  may 
make  the  baptism  of  the  child  absolutely  im- 
possible to  the  minister,  can  excuse  him  for  fail- 
ing to  attend  to  it.  Of  course,  it  would  be  far 
more  pleasant  to  have  the  hearty  approval  of 
the  parent  in  baptizing  the  child ;  but  if  that 
approval  be  wickedly  or  ignorantly  withheld, 
that  does  not  justify  the  minister  in  disobeying 
God,  nor  in  robbing  the  dear  little  babes  of  what- 
ever blessing,  great  or  small,  the  baptism  might 
confer.  The  truth  is,  the  Catholic  priests  seem 
to  be  the  most  consistent  friends  of  infant  bap- 
tism. Though  they  do  not  pretend  that  God 
requires  it  in  his  word,  even  indirectly,  yet  be- 
cause the  Church  requires  it,  and  they  regard 
the  Church  as  his  representative  and  vicegerent 
on  earth,  they  spare  no  pains  to  enforce  it,  even 
invoking  the  aid  of  the  State  to  compel  the 
people  to  observe  it.  And,  in  this  way,  every 
person  in  a  Catholic  country  reaps  whatever 
benefit  there  is  in  it.  And  if  God  has  really  re- 
quired it,  who  can  blame  these  men  for  their 
zeal  ?  Are  they  not  rather  to  be  honored  and 
commended  for  it  ?  Why  should  God  be  dis- 
honored, and  the  dear  babes  be  robbed  of  a  great 


40  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

spiritual  blessing  by  allowing  a  divine  ordinance 
to  fall  into  disuse  ? 

Aye,  there's  the  rub.  Is  it,  after  all,  a  divine 
institution?  Many  years  ago  a  venerable  minister, 
fearing  I  might  renounce  it  altogether,  wrote  me  a 
very  pathetic  letter,  pleading  for  it  as  a  divine 
institution.  He  insisted  that  God  requires  us  to 
baptize  infants,  but  failed  to  set  forth  any  script- 
ural proof  of  such  requirement,  and  then  he 
grew  eloquent  about  its  benefits  as  "  a  seal  of 
the  covenant  of  grace."  Yet,  in  less  than  one 
year  afterward,  that  same  minister  published 
an  article  in  the  religious  press,  in  which  he  re- 
joiced that  the  members  of  pedobaptist  churches 
were  no  longer  obliged  to  have  their  children 
baptized,  but  were  at  liberty  to  do  as  they 
pleased  about  it,  neglecting  it  if  they  chose, 
without  incurring  the  censure  of  their  church. 
And  still  that  minister  remained  an  advocate  of 
infant  baptism.  Can  a  Christian  man  really 
believe  an  ordinance  to  be  of  divine  origin  and 
still  in  full  force,  and  yet  rejoice  that  churches 
which  profess  to  believe  in  it,  do  not  censure  such 
of  their  own  members  as  treat  it  with  neglect  ? 

The  fact  is,  gentle  reader,  infant  baptism  has 
nothing  divine  about  it.  God  never  instituted 
it,  directly  or  indirectly.  In  the  language  of  an 
eminent  pedobaptist  writer,  "Infant  baptism  was 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  4t 

established  neither  by  Christ  nor  the  apostles." 
Superstition  invented  it,  Romanism  adopted  and 
maintained  it,  and  priestcraft  continues  to  cherish 
it.  That  is  the  whole  matter  in  a  nutshell.  It 
is  neither  less  nor  more  than  a  churchly  pre-emp- 
tion of  the  child.  In  it  the  church  puts  a  mark 
on  the  unconscious  babe  by  which  to  claim  it,  in 
after  years,  as  her  own.  That  is  all  the  divinity 
there  is  in  it.  The  process  is  simple  and  trans- 
parent. Baptize  the  babe  when  it  is  wholly  in 
your  power,  and  in  after  years  approach  the 
youth  and  say:  "Ah,  my  young  friend,  you  be- 
long to  us.  We  baptized  you  in  infancy.  You 
are  a  child  of  our  church.  Come  home  to  your 
mother."  i 

Here  and  there  the  scheme  fails — the  youth 
sees  through  it,  or  deep  convictions  of  duty 
oblige  him  to  decide  for  himself,  and  let  his 
"mother"  mourn  her  unrequited  love;  but 
with  tens  of  thousands  it  succeeds.  This  is 
doubtless  the  utility  which  a  prominent  Congrega- 
tional minister  was  thinking  of,  when,  a  few  years 
ago,  in  a  sermon  on  infant  baptism,  after  declar- 
ing that  there  is  no  warrant  of  any  sort  in  the 
Scriptures  for  it,  he  said:  "  I  still  regard  it  as 
a  divine  institution,  ju«t  as  an  ox-yoke  is  a  divine 
institution.     It  is  useful,  just  as  an  ox-yokc  is 


42  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

useful ;  and  its  utility  makes  it  a  divine  institu- 
tion." 

Well,  it  is  an  ox-yoke  affair,  only  more  so ; 
for  no  humane  farmer  will  yoke  up  the  little 
calves,  and  keep  the  yoke  on  them  through  life. 

But  granting  this  sort  of  utility — the  utility  of 
an  old  Romish  trick  of  priestcraft — it  is  un- 
seemly in  the  Protestant  Church.  Look  at  it 
soberly.  Our  Presbyterian  brother  denounces 
Romanism,  says  it  is  antichrist,  the  mother  of 
harlots,  a  scarlet,  red  handed  beast,  and  many 
more  uncomplimentary  but  truthful  names  he 
applies  to  her;  and  his  Congregational,  Metho- 
dist, Lutheran  and  Episcopal  brethren  of  all 
sorts,  cry  amen ;  and  then  out  they  all  march  in 
solemn  array,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  pro- 
ceed to  wrap  an  old  rag,  filched  from  the  small 
clothes  of  that  same  Romish  antichrist,  about 
the  brows  of  the  dear  babes. 

Do  not  say  I  am  ridiculing  sacred  things,  I 
am  describing  a  wicked,  inconsistent,  and  most 
ridiculous  thing,  and  describing  it  exactly  as  it 
is.  Mind  you,  I  do  not  ask  pedobaptists  to 
desist  from  their  denunciations  of  the  apostate 
Romish  Church ;  but  in  the  name  of  common 
decency  I  insist  that  they  Should  first  return  the 
bit  of  old  rag  to  its  rightful  owner.  It  is  not 
fair  to  denounce  Romanism  while  you  wear  that 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  43 

dirty  Roman  rag  on  your  head.  Put  it  away 
and  be  consistent.  Why  should  Protestants  go 
about  wearing  the  old  rags  of  Romanism  ?  Why 
so  many  persist  in  doing  it  is  one  of  the  hopeless 
conundrums  of  this  age. 

And  yet,  there  is  another  feature  about  this 
matter  even  more  mysterious. 

There  are  men  and  women  who  profess  to  love 
Christ  and  his  truth,  thousands  of  them,  who 
will  tell  you  promptly  and  decidedly  that  they 
do  not  believe  in  infant  baptism  at  all ;  that  it  is 
not  of  God ;  that  it  is  false  and  foolish ;  that 
they  would  not  allow  their  own  children  to  be 
baptized  under  any  circumstances  ;  and  yet  they 
are  members  of  churches  which  profess  to  believe 
in  it,  and  they  habitually  give  their  influence 
and  their  money  to  aid  in  supporting  it.  You 
can  find  scores  and  hundreds  of  such  people  in 
every  community  —  Christians,  by  their  own 
confession,  constantly  and  deliberately  contribut- 
ing to  the  support  of  a  lie.  Does  this  startle 
you  ?  Well  it  may ;  but  it  is  a  plain,  undeniable 
fact,  which  any  one  can  observe  for  himself  every- 
where. 

And  in  multitudes  of  cases  this  class  of  persons 
contribute  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  support 
of  their  respective  churches  that,  were  they  to 
withdraw  it,  the  church  would  be  obliged  to  dis- 


44  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

band.  In  this  way  great  numbers  of  pedobap- 
tist  churches  are  now  kept  up  by  people  who 
profess  a  firm  confidence  that  pedobaptism  is  not 
of  God,  while  in  the  same  place  an  evangelical 
church,  which  rejects  infant  baptism,  is  neglected 
and  starved  out. 

It  is  a  strange  spectacle,  indeed.  Professed 
Christians  all  the  time  stultifying  themselves — 
forcing  upon  other  children  a  solemn  religious 
farce  which  they  spurn  from  their  own  doors ! 
Have  these  people  a  conscience  ?  Well  might 
the  children  cry  out  to  them,  "  Let  7ne  alone.'* 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  4$ 


NUMBER  IV. 


''Linton  the  Nib'' 

When  I   began  my  work  as   pastor  of  the 

church  in  the  village  of  T ,  I  had  not  given 

much  thought  to  the  communion  question.  I 
had,  indeed,  heard  some  random  talk  about  it, 
chiefly  denunciations  of  the  supposed  bigotry  of 
the  Baptists,  ^ut,  aside  from  that,  I  really  knew 
nothing  of  the  subject,  and,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
I  was  a  zealous  open-communionist.  I  had  just 
one  argument,  I  supposed,  and  it  was  extremely 
short,  but,  to  my  untaught  judgment,  wonderfully 
conclusive.  I  stated  it  to  my  church  in  very  few 
words,  as  follows:  "Christ  holds  fellowship  with 
all  Christians,  whether  baptized  or  not.  He  re- 
ceives men  into  heaven  who  were  not  members 
of  our  Church,  nor  of  any  other.  Why,  then, 
should  we  refuse  to  receive  such  men  and  com- 
mune with  them  around  his  table  on  earth?  Is 
the  table  holier  than  heaven?  Are  we  better 
than  our  Lord  ?  It  is  enough  that  the  disciple 
be  as  his  Master.  If,  therefore,  the  Master  has 
received  a  man,  and  is  holding  fellowship  with 


46  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

him,  we,  also,  ought  to  receive  him  at  the  Lord's 
table." 

This  seemed  satisfactory  to  the  church,  and, 
with  their  approval,  I  habitually  invited  to  the 
Lord's  table  all  who  loved  the  Master,  and  every- 
body said:  "How  Hberal  that  is!  They  are  a 
progressive  people." 

I  was  a  member  of  an  ecclesiastical  conven- 
tion— a  sort  of  hybrid  affair,  a  cross  between  a 
Congregational  association  and  a  Presbyterian 
synod,  composed  of  the  pastors  and  delegates 
of  the  churches  of  those  two  denominations, 
within  certain  limits.  By  way  of  a  little  pious 
fun,  we  christened  the  body  with  two  very  sug- 
gestive titles,  either  one  of  which  could  be  used, 
according  to  the  taste  or  pleasure  of  the  party 
using  it.  A  Congregationalist  could  speak  of  it 
as  the  ^^Congreterial  Convention  f  and  the  Pres- 
byterians could  denominate  it  the  *'Presbyga- 
tional  Convention.''  And  this  arrangement — 
originating  in  sport,  and  rather  mirth-provoking 
in  its  nature-;-had  the  greater  merit  of  a  certain 
degree  of  utility,  for  it  gratified  the  remaining 
vanity  of  the  dear  brethren  of  both  denomina- 
tions, since  it  enabled  them,  each,  to  put  his 
own  denomination  before  the  other  without  giv- 
ing any  definite  offense.  Of  course,  a  truly  lib- 
eral-minded man  should  not  care  a  fig  for  his 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  4/ 

own  Church,  any  more  than  a  generous,  neigh- 
borly man  should  care  for  his  own  wife  and  chil- 
dren ;  but,  still,  our  poor  human  nature  is  fear- 
fully set  in  its  ways,  and  the  best  of  men  will 
sometimes  relapse  into  such  utter,  awful  selfish- 
ness as  to  prefer  home  to  any  other  place  in  the 
wide,  wide  world.    And  if  the  truth  were  known, 
it  would  be  found  that  many  of  our  large-hearted 
men — leaders  in  our  modern  Christian  liberality 
— are  not,  after  all,  quite  free  from  the  petty 
weakness  of  a  slight  preference  for  their  very 
own  dear  Church  homes,     I  am  not  accusing 
them  of  any  intentional  wrong.     In  their  edito- 
rials, and  sermons,  and  speeches,  and  resolutions, 
they  are  no  more  liberal  than  they  mean  to  be; 
but  you  know  that  even  the  stammering  and  slow 
of  speech  find  it  much  easier  to  preach  and  re- 
solve than  to  practice.     It  should  not  surprise 
you,    therefore,  when   eloquent  speakers,    and 
writers,  and  conventionists  strike  a  key  a  little 
too  high  even  for  their  own  advanced  life.     Let 
us  not  condemn  them  unduly ;  rather,  let  some 
live  Yankee  invenf  '»ome  ingenious  plan  by  which 
a  liberal  man  can  still  be  liberal  to  his  heart's 
content,  and  still  put  his  own  dear  family  and 
Churchy«j/  a  little  ahead  of  all  others.    But  par- 
don this  digression,  and  return  witii  mc  to  our 
dear  old  Congreterial  Convention. 


48  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

Our  convention  met  twice  each  year,  and  re- 
mained in  session  about  three  days,  occupied 
with  matters  devotional,  doctrinal,  ecclesiastical 
and  literary.  We  had  sermons,  essays,  speeches 
discussions,  and  a  good  time  generally. 

It  so  happened,  after  I  had  been  at  T a 

year  or  two,  that  the  communion  question  was 
somehow  brought  up  in  our  convention,  and 
open-communion  practice  was  rather  pointedly 
rebuked  by  some  of  the  brethren.  This  did  not 
exactly  please  me,  and  I  looked  about  with  no 
httle  interest  to  see  who  would  arise  and  vindicate 
open-communion.  But  I  looked  in  vain.  All 
who  spoke  condemned  it,  and  the  rest  evidently 
approved  all  they  said,  and  there  seemed  to  be 
but  one  opinion  about  it  in  the  whole  conven- 
tion. 

At  last  I  could  endure  it  no  longer,  and  I 
arose  and  told  the  brethren  that  I  believed  in 
open-communion ;  that  my  church  believed  in  it, 
also ;  that  we  constantly  practiced  it,  and  that, 
too,  for  the  very  best  of  reasons;  and  then  I 
launched  my  one  conclusive  argument  at  them 
— and  sat  down. 

An  aged  Presbyterian  minister,  the  venerable 
and  talented  Rev,  Mr.  C,  arose  and  replied. 
He  reminded  the  convention  that  he  was  a  warm, 
true  friend  of  the  young  brother  who  had  just 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  49 

spoken ;  and  then  turning  to  me,  in  a  most  af- 
fectionate and  fatherly  way,  he  expressed  his 
great  surprise  and  grief  at  the  statements  I  had 
so  frankly  made.  Then,  characterizing  open- 
communion  as  utterly  unscriptural  and  thorough- 
ly demoralizing,  he  paid  his  respects  to  my  great 
argument  in  a  way  not  at  all  comforting  to  me. 
He  showed  that  the  very  first  duty  of  the  believer 
is  to  be  baptized,  and  thus  make  a  public  confes- 
sion of  his  faith  in  Christ;  and  that  while  a  man 
neglects  or  refuses  to  do  this,  we  have  no  right 
to  assume  that  he  is  a  Christian ;  that  Christ  him- 
self sharply  rebukes  such  men  for  claiming  to  be 
his  friends,  while  living  in  disobedience  to  his 
commands,  in  those  awful  words:  "Why  call 
ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  that  I 
say?"  He  next  affirmed  that  the  plain  duty  of 
every  baptized  believer  is  to  be  a  member  of  the 
Church,  submitting  to  her  discipline,  aiding  in 
bearing  her  burdens,  and  helping  her  in  pushing 
on  her  great  work — the  evangelization  of  the 
world.  And  then  he  solemnly  affirmed  that  to 
invite  persons  who  were  neglecting  these  great 
duties  to  sit  down  to  the  Lord's  table  was,  prac- 
tically, to  encourage  them  in  their  attitude  of 
disobedience  to  Christ,  and  to  approve  their 
sinful  neglect  of  his  Church,  and  thus  to  be- 
come, in  some  measure,  partakers  of  their  sins. 
4 


50  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

Somehow  he  seemed  to  be  talking  sound  sense 
and  Bible  truth  all  the  time,  and  I  inwardly  pit- 
ied my  great  argument,  he  seemed  to  compress 
it  so  much  and  made  it  look  so  small. 

After  talking  half  an  hour,  he  turned  again  to 
me,  begging  pardon  for  saying  so  much,  and 
stating  as  his  excuse  that  he  had  really  forgotten 
himself  But  I  begged  him  to  go  on,  as  I  de- 
sired to  know  and  do  the  truth ;  and,  at  my  earn- 
est sohcitation,  he  did  go  on.  He  proceeded  to 
show  that  the  Lord's  table  belongs  in  the  Lord's 
house  (the  church),  and  not  on  the  sidewalk  in 
front  of  it ;  and  that  it  is  a  doubtful  compliment 
to  the  Lord  to  take  his  table  out  of  his  house 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  are  unwilling  to 
come  into  his  house.  He  thought  it  was  lower- 
ing the  table,  and  the  house,  and  the  Master  of 
the  house,  at  a  dreadful  rate.  (And  just  be- 
tween you  and  me,  I  thought  that  he  was  more 
than  half  right.  I  know  I  would  not  thank  any 
one  for  taking  my  table  out  into  the  street,  set- 
ting it  out  there,  at  my  expense,  for  the  benefit 
of  a  set  of  beggars  who  would  not  condescend 
to  come  into  my  house;  would  you?  If  they 
claimed  to  be  my  friends,  I  would  reply:  Then 
let  them  show  their  friendship  by  coming  into 
my  house;  wouldn't  you?) 

He  owned  that  a  man  ought  to  be  a  Christian 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  Jl 

before  he  is  baptized  or  joins  the  Church,  and 
that  he  had  no  doubt  in  his  own  mind  that  there 
really  were  Christians  outside  the  Church.  (Then 
I  thought  he  had  given  himself  away ;  but  I  soon 
found  he  had  a  way  out  of  it. )  He  said  if  we 
thought  a  man  outside  of  the  Church  was  a 
Christian,  we  could  love  him  and  fellowship  him 
as  a  Christian  without  inviting  him  to  the  Lord's 
table.  He  said  we  did  not  go  to  the  Lord's 
table  to  express  our  Christian  fellowship  for  each 
other,  but  to  commemorate  his  death  ;  and  he 
quoted  that  Baptist  proof-text:  "This  do  in  re- 
membrance of  me. "  Somehow  he  talked  in  such 
a  way  that  I  would  have  thought  him  a  narrow, 
bigoted  Baptist,  had  I  not  known  that  he  was  a 
straight-laced  and  very  strong  Presbyterian.  But 
I  very  naturally  discounted  his  arguments  very 
largely:  First,  because  he  was  not  a  Congrega 
tionalist,  and,  therefore,  I  could  not  expect  him 
to  be  quite  as  liberal  as  we  were;  and,  second, 
because  I  very  much  doubted  whether  he  did 
really  believe  his  own  words,  for  it  seemed  to 
me  that,  if  they  were  really  true,  they  proved 
too  much  for  a  Presbyterian,  and  demonstrated 
beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  that,  after  all,  the 
Baptists  were  right.  In  this  I  doubtless  did  my 
venerable  friend  a  momentary  injustice,  since, 
in  fact,  there  is  really  no  difference  of  opinion 


52  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

about  the  Lord's  Supper  between  true  Presby- 
terians and  the  Baptists;  their  differences  in 
practice  resulting  solely  from  their  differences 
respecting  baptism.  So  true  is  this  that,  if  a 
sound,  intelligent  Presbyterian  becomes  con- 
vinced that  the  Baptists  are  right  about  baptism, 
he  is,  forthwith,  a  thorough-going  Baptist  with- 
out changing  his  views  one  iota  respecting  com- 
munion. 

My  friend,  Rev.  Mr.  C.  spoke  one  hour  en 
the  subject ;  and  as  that  seemed  to  exhaust  his 
side  of  it,  and  as  I  did  not  offer  any  reply,  the 
convention  took  up  other  matters. 

But  in  arranging  the  programme  for  the  next 
meeting,  the  brethren  appointed  me  to  prepare 
and  read  an  essay  on  this  question:  "Is  it  right 
for  a  minister  of  the  gospel  to  invite  an  uiibaptized 
believer  to  the  Lord's  table  T'  I  put  on  a  brave 
face  to  hide  my  misgivings,  and  told  them  to 
come  to  the  next  meeting  prepared  to  surrender, 
and  with  a  good-natured  laugh  w^e  adjourned. 

I  have  a  philosophic  young  friend,  who  is  in 
the  habit  of  observing:  "You  don't  know  what 
is  before  you,"  and  my  experience  with  that  es- 
say illustrates  the  truth  of  his  remark.  I  had 
an  idea,  when  the  topic  was  assigned  me,  that 
the  brethren  were  getting  me  into  a  pretty  tight 
place,  and  that  I  had  a  particularly  hard  task 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  53 

before  me — an  idea  which  the  event  very  fully- 
confirmed. 

But  I  went  about  it  vigorously,  determined 
to  succeed,  if  it  were  possible,  in  setting  aside 
those   Presbyterian-Baptistic   arguments,    for   I 
really  dreaded  them ;  knowing  very  well  that  if 
I  could  not  do  it,  I  would  be  in  great  danger  of 
becoming  a  straight-out  Baptist,  for  I  had  many 
and  very  grave  doubts  about  our  Presbygational 
baptism,  and  they  were  constantly  gaining  upon 
me.     So  I  went  to  work  on  my  essay  under  a 
severe  pressure  from  all  quarters.     To  add  to 
the  difficulty  of  my  work,  I  found  my  one  great 
argument  so  badly  damaged  that  I  was  almost 
ashamed  to  use  it;  and,  indeed,  an  exhaustive 
search  convinced  me  that  I  had  but  little  ammu- 
nition of  any  sort  available  for  use.     But  that 
only  proved  the  necessity  of  making  the  most 
of  what  I  had,  which  I  proceeded  eagerly  to  do. 
I  took  radical  ground  in  respect  to  the  rights  of 
the  individual,  contending  that  he  alone  must 
be  the  judge  of  his  duty,  as  he  alone  is  answer- 
able at  the  bar  of  Jehovah  for  what  he  does  or 
omits  to  do.     I  denied  that  the  Church  has  a 
right  to  require  baptism  as  a  condition  of  mem- 
bership, or  to  enforce  her  opinions  respecting 
the  qualifications  of  communicants  at  the  Lord's 
tabk.     Of  course,  in  it§  logical  consecjuences, 


54  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

this  would  debar  the  Church  from  every  act  of 
discipline.  I  winced  a  little  at  this,  but  I  could 
not  escape  it  except  by  an  unconditional  sur- 
render, and  I  was  not  prepared  for  that.  Yet  I 
could  not  escape  the  fact  that  the  Church  is  re- 
sponsible for  her  own  conduct  as  a  Church,  and  I 
was  obliged  to  meet  this  question,  as  one  of  the 
inevitable  results  of  the  admission  of  unbaptized 
persons  to  the  Lord's  table  and  to  membership 
in  his  Church:  "What  shall  the  Church  do  in 
the  case  of  any  member  who  may  be  guilty  of 
a  continuous  neglect  of  baptism?"  I  could  do  no 
less  than  to  affirm  it  to  be  her  duty  kindly,  yet 
faithfully,  to  admonish  the  one  guilty  of  such 
neglect,  and  I  was  obliged  to  concede  also  that, 
her  admonition  being  disregarded,  the  Church 
must  proceed  in  due  time  to  withdraw  the  hand 
of  fellowship  from  the  offender. 

Somehow  I  felt  that  this  was  a  particularly 
weak  spot  in  my  argument,  but  I  could  not  help 
it ;  the  weakness  was  an  inherent  one ;  it  belong- 
ed inseparably  to  the  position  I  had  felt  myself 
driven  to  assume,  and  I  resorted  to  the  only  rem- 
edy left  me,  heaping  up  a  great  pile  of  mere 
words,  to  hide  it,  if  possible,  from  observation. 
Finally,  I  finished  my  essay  and  laid  it  aside, 
feeling  that,  all  things  considered,  I  had  made  it 
a  success,    But  "we  do  not  know  what  is  before 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  55 

us;"  at  least,  I  did  not,  and  I  am  glad  of  it.  I 
had  my  little  hour  of  anticipated  pleasure,  and 
then  came  the  crash,  and  my  laboriously-planned 
essay,  together  with  the  cause  it  was  intended 
to  promote,  went  up  and  out  in  smoke. 

It  happened  in  this  way.  A  few  days  before 
the  meeting  of  our  convention,  I  reviewed  my 
essay  for  the  purpose  of  making  verbal  correc- 
tions and  improvements — to  put  on  the  finishing 
touches,  as  it  were.  While  thus  employed,  I 
determined  to  rewrite  the  entire  paper,  introduc- 
ing in  many  places  forms  of  expression  more 
elegant,  pertinent  and  forcible.  I  began  this 
work  at  once,  and  had  nearly  completed  it,  when 
I  was  interrupted  by  some  derangement  of  my 
pen.  Supposing  I  had  corrected  it,  I  resumed 
my  writing,  or  attempted  to,  but  my  pen  would 
not  work  properly.  Again  I  stopped,  and  ex- 
amining the  pen,  I  found  lint  on  the  nib,  wedged 
in,  so  to  speak.  While  removing  the  lint,  my 
eye  wandered  over  the  unfmished  page  of  man- 
uscript before  me,  finally  resting  on  the  last 
word  I  had  written — continuous — in  the  question, 
"What  ought  the  Church  to  do  in  the  case  of 
any  member  who  may  be  guilty  of  a  coritinuous 
neglect o{  baptism?"  Cotttintious,  thought  I ;  that 
is  rather  an  indefinite  term.  How  long  is  it? 
Baptism  is  an  evident  duty,  enjoined  by  the  ex- 


56  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

press  command  of  Christ,  sanctioned  by  his  own 
example,  observed  by  his  apostles,  and  binding 
on  all  believers  in  all  ages  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation. It  is  certainly  an  imperative  duty  for 
every  Christian,  enforced  by  the  highest  author- 
ity. 

How  long,  then,  may  the  Church  sanction  the 
neglect  of  it?  How  long  may  she  innocently 
acquiesce  in  a  continuous  neglect  of  it?  One 
year?  No,  I  dare  not  affirm  that,  A  whole 
year  of  known  disobedience !  no,  that  will  never 
do.  Well,  may  she  not  permit  a  neglect  of  it 
for  six  months  ?  Here  I  paused  and  thought  a 
long  time.  Six  months  of  known  disregard  of 
Christ's  command,  sanctioned  by  his  Church! 
No,  no ;  that  must  not  be.  That  is  altogether 
too  continuous.  I  dare  not  approve  that.  I  know 
it  would  be  wrong.  Well,  then,  say  three  mojiths. 
But  I  did  not  dare  to  say  three  months.  But 
surely  the  Church  may  wink  at  a  short  delay, 
say  six  weeks  ?  Ah,  my  dear  reader,  I  was  in 
a  very  tight  place.  What  could  I  do?  How 
could  I  escape?  Would  God  be  Avell  pleased 
with  six  weeks  of  known  and  daring  disobedi- 
ence of  his  command?  Would  he  be  pleased 
with  his  Church  for  winking  at  so  great  a  sin  ? 
If  I  should  counsel  the  Church  to  do  this  thing, 
would  he  say  to  me :   "  Well  done,  thou  good 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  57 

and  faithful  servant;  thou  hast  been  faithful  over 
a  few  things,  I  will  make  thee  ruler  over  many 
things:  enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord?" 
I  saw  clearly  that  that  word  cotitinuous,  which  I 
had  used  so  carelessly,  must  go,  and  that  with 
it  my  whole  essay  must  also  go,  and  that  as  an 
honest  man  I  must  eat  a  big  batch  of  humble 
pie,  by  publicly  renouncing  open  communion 
both  in  theory  and  practice. 

I  arose,  and  taking  up  my  manuscript,  I  thrust 
it  into  the  flames.  It  burned  very  swiftly  and 
beautifully,  and  I  had  the  comfort  of  knowing 
that  it  was  good  for  something. 

In  due  time  I  attended  the  convention,  and 
gladdened  the  hearts  of  my  Presbyterian  and 
Congregational  brethren  by  confessing  myself  a 
convert  to  close  communion.  My  dear  church, 
after  listening  to  my  statement  of  my  reasons 
for  proposing  a  change  in  our  practice,  cheer- 
fully assented,  and  we  were  no  longer  open  com- 
munion in  practice.  It  was,  indeed,  a  great 
change,  and  the  passing  years  confirm  in  me 
the  conviction  that  it  was  a  change  in  the  right 
direction ;  for,  in  substance,  it  was  simply  a 
practical  recognition  of  the  divine  law  as  su- 
preme. 

As  I  think  of  the  means  by  which  it  was 
brought  about,  I  am  astonished.    In  those  youth- 


58  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

ful  days  I  was  very  impetuous.  I  think  I  had 
some  genuine  piety,  but  I  know  I  was  not  with- 
out a  great  deal  of  self-conceit  and  pride ;  and, 
like  thousands  of  better  men,  I  often  used  words 
without  weighing  fully  their  import.  And  this 
is  not  a  slight  fault,  for  words,  though  impalpa- 
ble, are  things — almost  living  creatures,  I  some- 
times think — armed  with  mysterious,  wonderful 
power  to  wound,  or  to  heal,  to  enlighten  and 
bless,  or  to  darken  and  destroy. 

No  wonder  the  Master  has  said:  "By  thy 
words  thou  shalt  be  justified,  and  by  thy  words 
thou  shalt  be  condemned."  He  who  uses  words 
freely,  handles  keen-edged  tools,  and  has  need 
of  great  wisdom  and  moderation,  that  he  may 
employ  only  fitting  ones,  and  arrange  them  wise- 
ly, kindly  and  well. 

And  he  who  writes  has  need  of  great  circum- 
spection. His  pen  is  an  instrument  of  power. 
It  will  trace  lines  on  his  own  heart  not  easily 
effaced.  For  myself,  I  often  have  occasion  to 
recall  with  gratitude  that  crisis  in  my  life,  when, 
in  the  providence  of  God,  all  its  currents  were 
turned  into  new  channels  by  "lint  on  the  nib." 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  59 


NUMBER  V. 


**  I  do  not  for  one  moment  admit  tJtat  immersion  is 
valid  baptism.'' 

After  the  tragic  ending  of  my  essay,  I  pre- 
pared a  brief  paper,  explaining  the  matter  as 
well  as  I  could,  and  apologizing  for  the  absence 
of  the  expected  but  defunct  defense  of  open 
communion.  In  that  paper  I  affirmed  that  no 
person  need  delay  baptism  on  account  of  the 
diversity  of  views  and  practices  respecting  it, 
since  those  who  could  not  see  the  way  clearly 
to  accept  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  could  be  im- 
mersed, which  all  Christendom  accepts  as  valid 
baptism.  This  simple  statement  of  a  fact,  which 
at  that  time  I  had  never   heard    controverted, 

brought  my  dear  old  pastor.   Rev.  Mr.  D , 

to  his  feet  in  an  earnest  protest.  "Sir,"  said 
he,  "  I  believe  I  am  a  Christian,  though  a  very 
unworthy  one,  and  I  do  not  for  one  moment 
admit  that  immersion  is  valid  baptism."  I  was 
greatly  amazed.  I  looked  at  him  in  utter  aston- 
ishment. I  was  greatly  perplexed,  too ;  for, 
knowing  him   intimately,    I   had  never  for  an 


60  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

instant  doubted  his  piety.  Indeed,  I  had  long 
revered  him  as  a  very  devoted  Christian  man, 
and  a  faithful  and  fearless  minister.  But  I  also 
knew  facts  in  his  history  that  seemed  irrecon- 
cilable with  this  strange,  sweeping  statement.  I 
gazed  at  him  in  silence  some  moments,  hardly 
knowing  what  reply  to  make.  There  was  a 
large  congregation  present.  It  was  in  his  own 
church,  and  I  was  standing  in  his  pulpit,  while 
he  stood  near  the  center  of  the  room.  Every 
eye  seemed  fixed  on  him,  and  the  silent  suspense 
soon  became  painful.  At  last  I  said :  ' '  Bro. 
D ,  may  I  ask  you  one  question?"  "Cer- 
tainly," said  he.      "Bro.   D ,"  said  I,    "if 

immersion  is  not  valid  baptism,  why  did  you  lead 
your  own  daughter,  who  had  been  sprinkled  in 
infancy,  into  the  river  and  immerse  her,  saying: 
*  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"  If  im- 
mersion is  not  valid  baptism,  how  could  you  do 
that?"  It  was  now  his  turn  to  remain  silent, 
which  he  did  for  some  time,  meanwhile  ap- 
parently engaged  in  an  earnest  study  of  the  toes 
of  his  boots.  At  last  he  looked  up  and  said : 
"I  did  it  to  please  my  daughter.  I  did  not 
regard  it  as  baptism,  but  she  did ;  and  I  did  it 
to  please  her." 

Just  then  a  Presbyterian  minister  arose  and 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  6l 

« 

said :  ' '  Sir,  look  at  me.  I  do  not  admit  that 
immersion  is  valid  baptism."  I  did  look  at  him, 
but  having  no  personal  kowledge  of  his  practice 
in  respect  to  baptism,  I  contented  myself  with 

this  remark :   *'  My  dear  Bro.  L ,  I  am  sorry 

for  you,"     Yet  I   have   since   known   persons 

whom  Bro.  L had  immersed.     It  is  true,  he 

did  not  Hke  to  do  it ;  but  when  they  said  :  "We 
must  be  immersed,  and  if  you  will  not  immerse 
us,  we  will  go  to  the  Baptists,"  he  replied,  "Oh, 
well,  rather  than  have  you  go  to  the  Baptists,  I 
will  immerse  you."     And  he  did. 

I  do  not  know  of  one  evangelical  church  of  any 
denomination  which  will  not  receive  a  Baptist  as 
a  baptized  person.  I  do  not  say  there  is  no 
church  that  would  refuse  to  receive  him  as  bap- 
tized, for  this  is  a  wide  world,  and  there  may  be 
a  church,  or  a  sort  of  one,  somewhere  in  some 
out-of-the-way  nook  or  cranny,  that  would 
actually  refuse  to  receive  an  honest,  upright  Bap- 
tist on  his  immersion,  and  would  require  him  to 
be  sprinkled.  If  anybody  on  earth  knows  of 
such  a  church,  I  would  be  glad  to  have  him 
publish  the  fact,  together  with  the  name  and 
location  of  the  church,  and  its  reasons  for  a  course 
so  very  singular. 

It  is  said  our  Presbyterian  brethren  have  been 
known  to  depose  a  minister  for  immersing  a 


62  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

person,  and  it  may  actually  be  true  that  they 
have  done  so ;  but  I  never  yet  knew  a  Presby- 
terian Church  to  refuse  membership  to  a  Baptist 
because  he  had  been  immersed,  nor  to  require 
him  to  be  sprinkled  as  a  condition  of  admission 
among  them.  The  truth  is,  that  immersion,  as 
baptism,  is  like  gold  coin — current  everywhere, 
in  all  the  churches. 

Almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  those  who  per- 
sist in  the  practice  of  sprinkling  do  all  they  dare 
do  to  discredit  immersion,  casting  contempt 
upon  it,  and,  in  many  cases,  refusing  to  admin- 
ister it ;  but  I  know  of  none  who  have  the  hardi- 
hood to  say  that  those  who  have  been  immersed 
upon  a  profession  of  faith  are  not  baptized. 
Even  my  old  pastor,  who  so  stoutly  declared, 
"  I  do  not  for  one  moment  admit  that  immersion 
is  valid  baptism,"  was  in  the  habit  of  receiving 
immersed  persons  into  his  church  as  properly 
baptized. 

I  have  often  been  astonished  at  the  hostility 
manifested  toward  immersion  by  men  who,  at 
the  very  same  time,  are  in  the  habit  of  recogniz- 
ing it  as  valid  baptism  whenever  it  knocks  for 
admission  into  their  respective  folds.  And  yet 
the  motive  is  usually  evident.  A  young  lady, 
whose  family  are  Congregationalists,  became  a 
regular  attendant  at  our  church  (Baptist),  and 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  63 

everything  moved  along  very  pleasantly — her 
family  being  among  my  warm  personal  friends 
— until  she  became  an  earnest  Christian,  and 
applied  for  baptism  and  membership  with  us. 
Then  there  was  a  commotion  in  the  camp.  Her 
family  positively  forbade  her  uniting  with  the 
Baptist  Church.  They  would  consent  to  her 
being  immersed,  but  not  by  a  Baptist  minister, 
nor  to  join  a  Baptist  Church.  After  many  days 
of  unavailing  pleading  and  tears,  finding  she 
could  not  change  their  resolution,  she  reluctant- 
ly went  to  the  Methodist  Church  (there  was  no 
Congregational  Church  in  the  town),  and  was 
immersed  by  the  pastor.  I  was  present  at  her 
baptism,  as  were  many  hundreds  more,  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  conducted  was  an  outrage 
almost  insufferable. 

Arriving  at  the  river  bank,  near  the  center  of 
the  town,  the  minister  instantly  marched  into 
the  water  with  a  determined  sort  of  stride,  as  if 
he  were  impatient  to  the  last  degree  and  deter- 
mined to  get  through  with  a  disagreeable  job  as 
speedily  as  posssiblc.  He  kept  his  hat  on  his 
head,  and,  without  waiting  for  a  word  of  prayer, 
or  any  religious  services  whatever,  he  led  the 
poor  girl  into  the  water,  and,  halting  where  it 
was  not  more  than  two-thirds  the  proper  depth, 
he  hurriedly  uttered  the  baptismal  formula  and 


64  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

then  fairly  hurled  her  under  the  water,  as  if  in 
anger ;  then,  jerking  her  out,  he  led  her  to  the 
shore,  and,  without  removing  his  hat,  dismissed 
the  people  with  the  briefest  sort  of  a  benediction. 

And  yet  the  weather  was  pleasant,  and  there 
was  plenty  of  time  for  the  proper  and  decorous 
observance  of  the  ordinance.  He  evidently  did 
not  intend  to  observe  it  in  a  decorous  manner, 
lest  others  might  be  impressed  by  it,  and  come 
to  regard  it  as  the  scriptural  baptism.  In  other 
words,  he  meant  to  heap  contempt  upon  immer- 
sion, which  yet  he  received  as  baptism. 

He  intended  to  neutralize  the  influence  of  im- 
mersion as  much  as  possible  by  his  method  of 
administration,  and  his  desire  to  defend  sprink- 
ling prompted  that  intention. 

And  for  the  same  reason  the  family  of  the  girl 
consented  that  she  should  receive  immersion  at 
his  hands  rather  than  mine.  They  had  been,  and 
continued  to  be,  my  warm  friends ;  but  they 
knew  that  immersion  by  a  Baptist  minister,  in 
connection  with  a  Baptist  Church,  means  some- 
thing— means  a  condemnation  and  rejection  of 
sprinkling — and  they  had  been  sprinkled.  Their 
refusal  of  her  request  for  permission  to  receive 
baptism  at  my  hands,  and  to  unite  with  our 
church,  was  neither  less  nor  more  than  an  im- 


BEHiKD  the:  scE^fES.  65 

potent  effort  to  justify  themselves  in  having  re- 
ceived sprinkling  as  baptism. 

But  they  also  knew  that  immersion  by  a 
Methodist  minister,  in  connection  with  the 
Methodist  Church,  means  only  a  concession  to 
the  opinions  and  choice  of  the  candidate ;  and 
they  probably  knew,  also,  that  that  Methodist 
minister,  like  too  many  others,  would  take  care 
to  make  it  mean  just  as  little  as  possible,  even 
by  way  of  such  concession.  Such  motives,  I 
grant  you,  are  not  remarkable  for  their  Christian 
tone ;  but  such  as  they  are,  they  are  far  more 
common,  and  far  more  potent,  than  many  good 
people  imagine, 

A  few  years  ago.  Rev.  Mr.  B ,  a  Methodist 

Presiding  Elder,  was  called  to  officiate  in  a  Meth- 
odist Church,  in  one  of  the  beautiful  interior 
cities  of  Ohio,  on  a  certain  occasion  when  a  large 
number  of  persons  were  to  be  baptized.  What 
he  did,  and  how  he  did  it,  I  will  tell  you,  as  he 
told  it  to  me,  and  in  substantially  the  same 
words : 

"It  was  our  quarterly  meeting,  and  being 
Presiding  Elder  of  that  district,  it  was  my  duty 
to  preach,  and  knowing  that  there  were  a  large 
number  of  persons  to  be  baptized  that  day,  I 
resolved  to  speak  on  baptism.  You  know  that 
by  the  rules  of  our  Church  we  are  required  to 
5 


66  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

give  each  candidate  his  choice  of  modes ;  and 
we  immerse,  sprinkle  or  pour  each  one,  as  he 
may  elect.  I  had  some  fear  lest  a  few  might 
that  day  choose  to  be  immersed,  and  I  did  not 
want  to  immerse  them,  if  I  could,  in  any  reason- 
able way,  avoid  it.  So  I  proceeded  to  show,  as 
well  as  I  could,  that  sprinkling  is  the  proper 
mode,  but  I  could  not  make  it  so  clear  as  I  de- 
sired ;  so  I  turned  to  immersion,  and  said  all  I 
could  think  of  to  discredit  the  practice.  I  called 
attention  to  the  great  inconvenience  of  it  at  all 
times,  and  especially  to  ladies,  and  to  the  absolute 
discomfort  and  danger  of  it  in  cold  weather.  I 
enlarged  upon  this,  describing  the  cutting  of  the 
ice,  the  crowds  shivering  in  the  chilling  wintry 
winds,  the  poor  Baptist  preacher  standing  in  the 
ice-water,  chilled  to  the  very  bones,  his  arms 
encrusted  with  ice,  and  his  teeth  chattering  with 
cold,  and  the  forlorn  candidates  struggling  and 
choking  amid  the  floating  ice,  or  trembling  in 
their  frozen  garments  until  the  close  of  the  service. 
I  then  spoke  of  the  manifest  impropriety  of  the 
immersion  of  ladies  by  gentlemen,  and  in  a 
promiscuous  crowd,  and  related  a  number  of 
anecdotes  to  illustrate  the  great  indecencies,  al- 
ways liable  to  occur  on  such  occasions. 

' '  My  sermon  was  received  with  a  very  marked 
interest  throughout,  and  I  fancied  no  one  would 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  6/ 

care,  in  the  very  face  of  it,  to  ask  for  immersion. 
But  alas !  I  soon  found  that  this  was  only  a  fancy; 
for  a  very  large  majority  of  the  candidates — 
among  the  number  many  excellent  ladies — in- 
sisted on  being  immersed,  and  I  was  obliged  to 
march  at  the  head  of  that  congregation  to  the 
river  and  there  immerse  them.  Well,  I  got 
through  it  somehow ;  but  from  that  day  to  this 
I  have  never  preached  on  baptism,  and  I  think 
my  call  to  preach  upon  it  has  run  out.  ' 

This  confession  speaks  for  itself,  and  tells  the 
whole   tale ;    and    for   my   part,    I    honor   Mr. 

B for  his  frankness  in  the  matter.     Yet  he 

told  it  to  me  as  a  capital  joke  on  himself.  He 
did  not  seem  to  see  anything  morally  wrong  in 
the  part  he  had  taken  in  the  matter.  And  yet 
he  is  a  good  man  in  my  judgment,  and  in  the 
estimation  of  all  who  know  him  well.  In  respect 
to  baptism,  he  is  simply  blinded  and  warped  by 
the  pernicious,  unscriptural  usage  and  views  of 
his  Church.  Doubtless,  he  entered  that  Church 
in  early  life,  or  at  least  before  he  had  examined 
the  question  of  baptism  with  anything  Hke 
thoroughness ;  and  having  accepted  things  as  he 
found  them,  he  was  slowly,  but  surely,  molded 
into  conformity  with  them.  And  as  time  passed 
on  he  became  fixed  and  firmly  set  in  his  niche 
and  notions,  and  when  occasion  required,   he 


68  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

made  the  best  defense  of  his  practice  that  the 
case  admits  of;  for,  ridiculous  as  it  is,  no  man 
can  improve  on  it. 

In  the  language  of  an  old  friend,  a  Congrega- 
tional minister,  addressed  to  me,  "Don't  you 
know,  sir,  that  every  person  we  pedobaptists 
immerse  is  just  so  much  capital  for  the  Baptists?" 
This  friendly  reprimand  was  provoked  by  my 
action  in  the  case  of  two  ladies,  recent  converts 
under  my  ministry,  who  desired  me  to  give  them 
the  reasons  why  they  should  be  sprinkled.  I 
refused  to  do  so,  bidding  them  study  the  Bible 
for  themselves,  and  telling  them  frankly  that  it 
was  enough  for  me  to  sprinkle  them,  if  they 
should  require  it  at  my  hands.  "  But,"  said  I, 
"examine  the  matter  for  yourselves,  and  when 
your  minds  are  made  up  let  me  know,  and  I  will 
sprinkle  you,  or  I  will  immerse  you,  whichever 
you  may  prefer." 

The  ladies  finally  decided  that,  as  I  was  willing 
to  sprinkle  them  if  they  desired  it,  I  must  regard 
sprinkling  as  scriptural  and  right;  and  that,  being 
a  minister,  and  engaged  constantly  in  the  study 
of  such  matters,  I  must  know  all  about  it;  and 
that  the  weather  being  exceedingly  cold,  it  would 
be  much  more  comfortable  to  be  sprinkled  ;  and 
so  they  requested  me  to  sprinkle  them,  which  I 
did.     But  I  had  urged  them  to  decide  for  them- 


BEHIND    THE   SCENES.  69 

selves,  by  the  study  of  the  Bible,  and  my  friend 
very  justly  regarded  that  as  a  risky  business  for 
the  friends  of  sprinkling,  as  indeed  it  is.  I  knew 
that,  when  I  did  it,  and  I  secretly  hoped  the 
ladies  would  choose  to  be  sprinkled,  for  I  dreaded 
to  go  into  the  water  to  immerse,  fearing  that  I 
could  not  do  it ;  but  I  was  actually  afraid  to  ad- 
vise them  to  be  sprinkled  lest,  after  all,  it  might 
be  wrong. 

Immersion  not  valid  baptism !  That  is  strange, 
indeed ;  strange  that  any  good  man  ever  could 
affirm  it;  stranger  still  if  one  single  Christian  man 
could  anywhere  be  found  who  actually  believed 
it.  The  truth  is  that  immersion  lies  upon  the 
very  surface  of  the  Scripture  text,  while  sprink- 
ling, if  it  be  there  at  all,  is  buried  so  deep  that 
even  the  most  learned  men  can  not  find  it. 
A  young  lady,  just  converted  to  Christ,  came  to 
her  mother  in  great  distress,  saying,  ' '  Mother, 
is  sprinkling  in  the  Bible?"  "Certainly,  my 
daughter."  Her  mother  was  a  Presbyterian. 
"Mother,  please  find  it  for  me."  The  mother 
searched  for  it,  but  in  vain.  She  said:  *  'Daughter, 
I  know  it  is  there,  but  I  can  not  find  it.  I  will 
ask  our  minister  to  find  it  when  he  comes." 
In  a  few  days  he  came,  and  the  mother  preferred 
her  request:  "Is  sprinkling  in  the  Bible?" 
"Why,  of  course  it  is,"  said  he,     "  Well,  my 


70  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

daughter  asked  me  to  find  it  for  her,  and  I 
thought  I  could,  but  after  looking  a  long  time  I 
could  not.  Will  you  please  to  find  it  for  us?" 
"Yes;  hand  me  the  Bible."  She  handed  it  to 
him,  and  as  he  turned  over  the  leaves  he  en- 
gaged the  mother  in  an  earnest  conversation 
about  other  matters,  until  baptism  was  quite 
forgotten,  and  then  he  rose  and  left  the  house. 
The  next  time  he  came  his  attention  was  again 
called  to  the  subject,  and  once  more  he  took  the 
Bible  to  look  up  sprinkUng.  But  this  time  the 
mother,  fully  aroused,  was  not  to  be  eluded  so 
easily.  She  pressed  him  closel/,  and  at  last  he 
rose  and  left,  saying,  "Yes,  sprinkling  is  in  the 
Bible,  but  it  takes  a  great  deal  of  learning  and 
time  to  find  it." 

A  gentleman,  whose  attention  was  arrested 
by  the  fact  that  converted  Indians  are  very  apt 
to  become  Baptists,  inquired  of  one  of  them  why 
it  was  so.  The  Indian,  after  thinking  a  moment, 
replied:  "  Well,  I  don't  know,  unless  it  is  that 
we  poor  Indians,  being  generally  ignorant  people, 
are  obliged  to  take  the  Book  just  as  it  reads." 
Ah,  that  is  the  secret  of  it,  and  that,  too,  is  one 
of  the  best  proofs  that  Baptists  are  right.  For 
the  dear  old  Bible  is  the  book  of  the  people, 
written  in  the  language  of  every-day  life.  Jesus, 
sending  John  the  tokens  of  his  own  Messiahship, 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  71 

bid  the  men  to  tell  him,  ' '  The  poor  have  the 
gospel  preached  wnto  them.''  And  to-day  one 
of  the  best  tokens  of  the  divinity  of  the  Bible  is 
the  fact  that  the  masses  of  the  people,  the 
common  people,  can  read  it  and  understand  it 
for  themselves  without  the  intervention  of  scribe 
or  pharisee,  priest  or  Pope.  I  do  not  decry 
learning  (God  forbid),  but  I  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  Bible  speaks  to  the  unlearned  as 
distinctly  and  clearly  as  to  the  most  highly 
cultured.  It  is  the  people's  book,  and  so  long  as 
it  is  in  their  hands  and  they  are  at  liberty  to 
read  it  for  themselves,  the  truth  has  nothing  to 
fear,  and  ultimate  triumph  is  certain. 

The  time  was  when  immersion,  as  baptism, 
was  on  trial,  and  those  who  accepted  it  did  so  at 
their  peril ;  but  that  day  has  passed  away  never 
to  return,  and  to-day  sprinkling  and  pouring  are 
on  trial,  and  the  trial  is  going  against  them  at  a 
tremendous  rate.  Already  it  is  a  difficult 
matter  to  find  competent  men  who  are  willing  to 
attempt  their  defense,  while  scores  of  their  best 
friends  frankly  admit  that  they  have  no  case  at 
all.  Here  and  there,  perhaps,  one  may  still  be 
found  willing  to  rise  up  and  say  that  immersion 
is  not  valid  baptism  ;  but  even  they  actually  re- 
ceive it  and  treat  it  as  valid  in  the  most  solemn 
business  of  the  Church.      But,  on  the  other 


72  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

hand,  millions  tell  you  in  the  most  emphatic 
manner  possible  that  immersion  is  not  only 
baptism,  but  the  only  valid  water  baptism,  while 
other  millions  insist  on  immersion  as  the  only 
baptism  satisfactory  to  them.  Two  hundred 
years  ago  men  were  ostracizing  Baptists  for  the 
practice  of  immersion ;  to-day  the  descendants 
of  those  same  men  are  hastening  to  put  bap- 
tisteries into  their  churches. 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  73 


NUMBER  VI. 


**Iwill  go  to  the  bottom  of  this  matter,  and  find 
out  the  ttuth  if  lean;  and  ivherri'er  that  leads 
me  I  will  cheerfully  go.^' 

After  a  residence  of  several  years  in  the  vil- 
lage of  T my  health  failed,  and  I  was  obliged 

to  leave  my  dear  people  and  enter  a  field  where 
my  labors  would  not  be  so  severe.  Accordingly 
I  removed  to  the  village  of  M ,  with  the  un- 
derstanding that  I  should  preach  but  once  a 
week,  and  that  I  should  spend  the  most  of  my 
time  in  the  saddle — in  search  of  health. 

Whtn  I  had  been  there  some  five  or  six 
months,  business  called  me  to  a  distant  city  for 
a  few  days.  Wliile  there  a  friend,  a  Congrega- 
tional divinity  student,  gave  me  a  little  anony- 
mous book,  filled  with  extracts  from  various 
pedobaptist  works  on  the  subject  of  baptism. 

As  he  handed  it  to  me  he  laughingly  observed 
that  he  had  not  read  it  himself,  but  that  the 
Baptist  brother  who  gave  it  to  him  would  gladly 
give  him  another,  and  that  it  might  serve  to 
?iiTiuse  me  and  while  away  an  idle  hour,     I  put 


74  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

it  in  my  pocket,  and  did  not  think  of  it  agai.i 
until  some  days  after  my  return  home. 

Sitting  in  my  study  one  day,  somewhat  wearied 
with  the  labor  of  preparation  for  the  next  Sab- 
bath, and  wishing  for  something  diverting  to 
read,  I  suddenly  recollected  the  little  book  my 
friend  had  given  me.  I  got  it  and  sat  down  to 
read.  Oh,  horrors  !  Here  was  diversion  with 
a  vengeance.  The  book  was  literally  packed 
with  extracts  from  pedobaptist  writers,  contain- 
ing the  most  damaging  admissions  of  the  correct- 
ness of  the  Baptist  views.  My  mind,  already 
sorely  pressed  with  doubts  about  infant  baptism 
and  sprinkling,  was  instantly  greatly  agitated. 

If  we  were  right,  why  did  our  champions 
make  such  fatal  admissions?  Surely  a  man  de- 
fending his  own  practice  would  admit  nothing 
against  it  which  he  did  not  deem  to  be  true. 
But  here  were  some  of  our  greatest  writers  giv- 
ing our  cause  away  completely.  Did  they  know 
that  we  really  have  no  valid  defense?  Did  they, 
after  all,  know  that  the  Baptists  are  right?  It 
certainly  seemed  so. 

But  hold !  This  is  a  book  gotten  up  by  some 
Baptist,  thought  I,  and  he  has  garbled  these 
extracts,  doctoring  them  up  to  suit  his  own 
purposes.  Doubtless  he  misrepresents  these 
writers,   or,   rather,    makes  them  misrepresent 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  75 

themselves  by  a  skillful  but  dishonest  arrange- 
ment of  their  sentences.  This  notion  gave  me 
a  little  relief.  But  just  then  my  eye  rested  on 
an  extract  from  the  ''Systematic  Theology  of 
Storr  and  Flatt,"  which  began  by  stating  that 
the  original  baptism  was  probably  immersion, 
since  the  apostles  could  understand  our  Lord's 
command  in  no  other  way  than  as  enjoining  an 
immersion  of  the  body  in  water. 

That  Storr  and  Flatt — great  Lutheran  theo- 
logians— could  ever  have  published  such  stuff, 
was  to  me  utterly  incredible.  I  dashed  the  book 
upon  the  floor,  crying  out  in  great  indignation : 
"I  wish  those  Baptists  could  tell  the  truth." 
Instantly  I  recollected  that  I  had,  but  a  few  days 
before,  added  the  work  of  Storr  and  Flatt  to 
my  library.  I  ran  across  the  room  and  clutched 
the  volume  whence  the  extract  purported  to  have 
been  taken,  and  returned  to  my  chair,  saying, 
as  I  did  so:  "I  will  expose  that  lie."  Opening 
the  volume  at  the  page  indicated  in  the  little 
book,  I  sat  many  minutes  fairly  dumb  with  as- 
tonishment. This  is  what  I  read  in  the  great 
work  of  Storr  and  Flatt.  You  will  find  it  in 
their  Biblical  Theology,  vol.  IL,  art.  Baptisn> 
page  290,  edition  1826: 

' '  The  primitive  mode  was  probably  by  immer- 
sion.    The   lisciples  of  our  Lord  could  under- 


76  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

Stand  his  command  in  no  other  manner  than  as 
enjoining  immersion :  for  the  baptism  of  John, 
to  which  Jesus  himself  submitted,  and  also  the 
earher  baptism  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  were 
performed  by  dipping  the  subject  into  cold 
water. 

"And  that  they  actually  did  understand  it  so 
is  proved,  partly  by  those  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  which  evidently  allude  to  immersion, 
.  .  and  partly  from  the  fact  that  immer- 
sion was  so  customary  in  the  ancient  Church, 
that  even  in  the  third  century  the  baptism  of  the 
sick,  who  were  merely  sprinkled  with  water,  was 
entirely  neglected  by  some,  and  by  others  was 
thought  inferior  to  the  baptism  of  those  who 
were  in  health,  and  who  received  baptism,  not 
merely  by  aspersion,  but  who  actually  bathed 
themselves  in  water.  This  is  evident  from  Cyp- 
rian {Epist.  69,  ed.  Bremar,  p.  185,  etc.)  and 
Eusebius  {His.  Eccles.  Z.,  vi.,  cap.  43),  where 
we  find  the  following  extract  from  the  letter  of 
the  Roman  bishop,  Cornelius :  *  Novatus  received 
baptism  on  a  sick  bed  by  aspersion  (perichutheis), 
,f  it  can  be  said  that  such  a  person  received  bap- 
tism.' No  person,  who  had  during  sickness 
been  baptized  by  aspersion,  was  admitted  into 
the  clerical  office.  Moreover,  the  old  custom 
pf  immersion  was  also  ret^iined  a  long  time  in 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  'J^ 

the  Western  Church — at  least  in  the  case  of 
those  who  were  not  indisposed. 

"Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  certainly  to 
be  lamented  that  Luther  was  not  able  to  accom- 
plish his  wish  with  regard  to  the  introduction  of 
immersion,  as  he  had  done  in  the  restoration  of 
wine  in  the  eucharist.  But  it  is  evident  that 
there  was  a  very  important  difference  between 
the  two  cases. 

"After  the  restoration  of  the  wine,  the  laity 
could  partake  of  both  bread  and  wine  in  the  cel- 
ebration of  the  supper  of  our  Lord.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  if  immersion  had  at  that  time  been 
restored,  whatever  course  those  who  had  been 
baptized  by  aspersion  might  pursue,  whether 
they  were  contented  with  their  baptism  by  as- 
persion, or  incurred  the  danger  of  disobeying 
Christ's  precept  by  being  baptized  twice,  they 
would  have  been  harassed  by  doubts  and  fears, 
which  it  would  have  been  difficult,  and,  perhaps, 
in  most  cases,  impossible  to  remove.  Hap- 
pily, however,  the  change  of  the  ancient  custom 
of  immersion,  although  it  ought  not  to  have  been 
made,  destroys  nothing  that  is  essential  to  this 
ceremony,  as  it  was  instituted  by  our  Savior." 

Now  study  this  long  extract  and  note  its  amaz- 
ing admissions,  and  then  realize,  if  you  can,  my 
situation.     Here  were  at  least  five  of  our  great- 


78  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

est  pedobaptist  scholars  and  theologians  affirm- 
ing all  that  the  much-abused  Baptists  claim  as 
to  what  baptism  is.     Note  their  affirmations: 

I.  That  Christ  commanded  immersion, 

II.  That  his  command  could  not  be  under- 
stood by  the  apostles  in  any  other  way. 

III.  That  Christ  himself  was  immersed  in 
water. 

IV.  That  his  apostles  really  did  understand 
his  command  to  enjoin  immersion,  and  that  they 
obeyed  it  by  immersing. 

V.  That  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 
whole  Church  in  primitive  times. 

VI.  That  immersion  continued  the  general 
practice  in  the  Western  (or  Romish)  Church  a 
long  time. 

VII.  That  it  was  finally  supplanted  by  sprink- 
ling— a  change  which  ought  not  to  have  been 
made. 

VIII.  That  Luther  desired  to  restore  immer- 
sion in  baptism,  but  could  not. 

IX.  That  his  failure  to  restore  it  is  to  be  re- 
gretted. 

And  now  remember  that  these  are  the  admis- 
sions, or  rather  the  affirmations,  of  five  great 
pedobaptist  theologians,  made  in  a  standard 
work  on  theology.  They  are  the  statements  of 
Drs.  Storr  and  Flatt,  published  without  a  word 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  79 

of  dissent  by  Dr.  Schmucker,  aided  by  Moses 
Stuart  and  Prof.  Murdock.  These  are  all  men 
of  the  greatest  eminence,  renowned  for  learning 
and  ability.  They  belong,  it  is  true,  to  the  last 
generation,  but  they  have  few  peers  among  the 
men  of  to-day.  And  they  affirm  substantially 
that  the  Baptists  are  right,  and  sprinkling  is,  in- 
deed, an  innovation,  and  an  unfortunate  one. 
Do  you  wonder  that  I  was  overwhelmed,  and 
most  thoroughly  confounded  ?  At  first  I  thought 
an  unconditional  surrender  was  the  only  thing 
left  me,  as  an  honest  man.  But  presently  I 
considered  that  these  great  men  might,  after  all, 
be  mistaken ;  that  possibly  they  had  sold  them- 
selves for  nought,  and  I  resolved  that  they  should 
not  sell  me.  I  would  examine  the  matter  for 
myself  But  why  should  I  ?  Why  not  dismiss 
the  whole  matter  and  keep  right  along  in  my 
present  practice!  If  I  was  wrong,  I  was  in  re- 
spectable and  pious  company.  If  it  was  a  sin, 
hosts  of  good  men  were  guilty  of  it,  and  surely 
I  could  stand  it  if  they  could !  Why  think  about 
it !     But  I  could  not  help  thinking  about  it. 

Here  were  great  men,  whom  the  world  revered 
as  good  men,  deliberately  publishing  a  virtual 
confession  that,  in  the  matter  of  a  solemn  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  they  and  their  churches  were 
habitually  disobeying  the  command  of  our  Lord. 


8o  BEHIND  THE   SCENES, 

Would  their  daring  disobedience  excuse  me  in 
pursuing  the  same  course?  Could  I  plead  their 
example?  And  if  at  the  last  it  should  appear, 
to  their  shame  and  confusion,  that  Christ  docs 
make  a  difference  between  those  who  obey  him 
and  those  who  do  not,  would  it  gratify  me  to 
be  a  partaker  of  their  condemnation?  If  they 
were,  as  indeed  they  seemed  to  be,  blind  lead- 
ers, would  their  reputation  prevent  their  falling 
into  the  ditch?  Could  I  afford  to  be  a  blind 
follower  of  such  blind  leaders?  But  was  I  not 
also,  in  a  more  humble  way,  a  leader?  Were 
not  many  following  me  with  implicit  confidence 
in  my  wisdom  and  integrity?  What  right  had 
t  to  abuse  their  confidence  by  a  willing  or  will- 
ful ignorance?  Then  the  authority  of  my  Lord, 
was  that  to  be  set  at  nought,  or  to  be  lightly  es- 
teemed by  his  professed  disciples?  But  then 
came  the  thought,  urged  by  so  many  as  an  ex- 
cuse for  a  neglect  to  look  into  this  matter,  or, 
having  looked  into  it,  for  continuing  to  support 
the  practice  of  sprinkling  contrary  to  the  divine 
command:  "Oh,  it  is  only  an  outward  form, 
anyway!  "  Only  an  outward  form— that  is  true, 
dutUt  is  an  ontwm'd  form  that  Christ  himself  com- 
mands ns  to  observe — if  these  great  pedobaptist 
witnesses  arc  correct.  If  he  really  commands 
me  to  observe  this  outward  form,  then  neglect 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  8l 

of  it  is  disobedience  to  his  command.  In  reject- 
ing the  form  he  has  enjoined,  I  reject  his  author- 
ity. Am  I  ready  to  do  that?  If  I  do  it,  how 
can  I  call  him  Lord?  Will  he  not  reply,  "Why 
call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and  do  not  the  things 
which  I  say?" 

Finally  the  struggle  in  my  mind  took  form : 
Suppose  I  can  find  Okut  the  truth  about  this  mat- 
ter, what  will  I  do  about  it?  What  ought  I  to 
do  about  it?  Suppose  I  learn  that  Jesus  did  act- 
ually enjoin  immersion,  am  I  bound  to  obey 
his  injunction?  Am  I  willing,  in  that  case,  to 
reject  sprinkling? 

Over  this  issue  I  wrestled  three  days  in  ago- 
nizing prayer.  Then  came  a  clear,  settled,  firm 
conviction  that  it  was  my  duty,  at  any  cost, 
thoroughly  to  investigate  the  whole  question  of 
baptism,  and  to  yield  obedience  to  the  expressed 
will  of  Jesus,  whenever  I  had  clearly  learned 
what  that  will  is,  or  cease  to  call  him  Lord. 
And  with  that  conviction  of  duty  came  also  a 
sense  of  consecrated  strength,  and  a  confidence 
of  divine  help  in  doing  it. 

Then  I  firmly  resolved  that,  "God  being  my 
helper,  I  will  go  to  the  bottom  of  this  matter, 
and  find  out  the  truth,  if  I  can,  and  wherever 
that  leads  I  will  cheerfully  go." 

You  wonder,  perhaps,  that  it  should  have  cost 
6 


82  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

me  a  struggle  so  severe,  and  so  prolonged,  to 
arrive  at  a  resolution  so  evidently  just  and  so 
clearly  demanded  by  every  principle  of  loyalty 
to  Christ  in  every  case  of  honest  doubt  respect- 
ing duty.  I  have  often  wondered  at  it  myself,  for 
I  regarded  Christ  as  King  all  that  time.  But  my 
situation  was  peculiar.  I  had  long  been  accus- 
tomed to  hear  baptism  spoken  of  as  a  "  mere 
form;"  its  outward  conditions  as  altogether  in- 
different ;  its  form  a  matter  of  personal  choice ; 
and  that,  whatever  Christ  might  have  enjoined, 
he  was  evidently  well  pleased  with  those  who 
were  sprinkled,  since  he  constantly  blessed  them 
and  their  labors  in  his  vineyard.  I  had  also  great 
personal  interests  at  stake.  I  was  a  minister  in 
a  denomination  greatly  endeared  to  me.  The 
thought  of  a  possible  separation  from  it  was  in- 
tensely painful.  I  was  pastor  of  a  small  but 
lovely  church.  Our  numbers  had  already  dou- 
bled since  my  settlement  with  it.  Not  one  dis- 
cordant note  marred  our  perfect  harmony.  Our 
prospects  were  very  bright.  I  was  bound  up  in 
my  church  by  ties  exceedingly  strong.  Among 
our  own  people  I  had  a  wide  acquaintance,  and 
hosts  of  warm  friends  outside  •  my  own  parish. 
I  was  a  young  man,  and  not  without  that  laud- 
able ambition  to  enlarge  my  sphere  of  usefulness 
which  ought  to  animate  the  breast  of  every  young 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES,  83 

man.  But  that  was  not  all,  nor  the  greatest  of 
my  difficulties.  The  outcome  of  a  thorough 
examination  might  be  Baptistic,  and  I  shrank 
from  the  thought  of  becoming  a  Baptist.  And 
I  dreaded,  too,  the  idea  of  a  change,  lest  I  might 
be  called  a  turn-coat,  and  be  regarded  as  a  fickle 
sort  of  man,  unstable  in  my  ways ;  a  reputation 
well-nigh  fatal  to  ministerial  success,  no  matter 
how  little  it  may  be  merited. 

These  are  the  great  influences  that  held  me 
back ;  but,  thank  God,  through  his  grace,  they 
were  .it  last  overcome,  and  I  entered  resolutely 
upon  the  dreaded  investigation  and  carried  out 
fully  my  solemn  resolution,  though  it  cost  me 
all  the  changes  and  sacrifices  I  so  much  feared. 
For  many  weary  months  I  studied,  and  thought, 
and  prayed ;  examining  rigidly  every  argument 
for  and  against  sprinkling  and  infant  baptism. 
I  read  scores  of  our  own  authors,  and  traveled 
many  scores  of  miles  to  confer  with  our  ablest 
champions.  I  resolutely  refused  to  read  a  Bap- 
tist book,  or  to  confer  with  any  member  of  any 
Baptist  church,  or  with  any  of  their  ministers. 
In  this  way  I  sought  to  avoid  the  danger  of 
being  influenced  by  personal  feelings,  or  per- 
sonal appeals.  It  was  a  rather  one-sided  plan, 
I  must  confess,  but  it  seemed  the  best  thing  for 
me  to  do;  and  I  do  not  regret  it.     Day  by  day 


84  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

the  mists  cleared  away.  Day  by  day  the  truth 
became  more  evident,  and  more  firmly  estab- 
lished. At  length  I  could  no  longer  doubt.  I 
was  fully,  thoroughly  convinced  that  we  were 
wrong  and  the  Baptists  were  right.  Reluctantly 
I  severed  my  connection  with  my  dear  people 
and  went  out  from  among  them,  bearing  with 
me  their  benedictions,  and  most  precious  mem- 
ories of  their  brotherly  kindness. 

And  though  the  way  was  painful,  I  am  glad 
God  led  me  thus.  I  am  not  harassed  by  doubts 
whether  I  am  doing  right  when  I  immerse  one 
who  professes  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus.  I  can 
confidently  invoke  the  presence  of  the  Master  at 
a  baptismal  scene,  for  I  know  by  a  blessed  ex- 
perience that  he  delights  to  honor  his  own  or- 
dinance, and  to  put  a  difference  between  that 
which  he  has  commanded  and  the  invention  of 
men,  which,  with  so  many,  has  usurped  its  place. 
Many  years  have  passed  away,  bringing  me  en- 
larged facilities  for  a  more  thorough  study  of  this 
subject,  and,  year  by  year,  the  evidence  contin- 
ues to  accumulate,  until  I  am  amazed  that  I 
could  have  had  any  doubt  about  it. 

And  yet  men  go  on  making  sport  of  immer- 
sion, and  putting  sprinkling  in  its  place,  just  as 
blindly  as  I  once  did.  I  pray  that  God  may 
lead  them  to  test  the  practice  by  his  holy  word ; 


•  BEHIND   THE    SCENliJ.  85 

for  when  a  man  resolves,  ' '  By  the  grace  of  God, 
I  will  go  to  the  bottom  of  this  matter,  and  find 
out  the  truth,  if  I  can,  and  wherever  that  leads  I 
will  cheerfully  go, "  he  is  sure  to  become  a  Baptist. 

I  am  not  a  prophet,  nor  do  I  belong  to  the 
honored  family  of  the  prophets,  but  I  venture 
the  prediction  that  one  hundred  years  hence  no 
one  will  pretend  that  sprinkling  is  baptism ;  that 
the  practice  of  it  will  be  unknown  among  evan- 
gelical Christians ;  that  it  will  be  a  part  of  the 
almost-forgotten  rubbish  of  a  less  enlightened 
past,  which  antiquarians  will  occasionally  ex 
plore,  much  as  they  now  search  the  Catacombs 
of  ancient  Rome,  or  the  rock  tombs  of  ancient 
Egypt.  And  the  preachers  of  that  period  will 
occasionally  allude  to  it,  only  to  point  a  moral, 
to  demonstrate  man's  need  of  divine  guidance 
under  all  circumstances. 

Now,  do  not  turn  up  your  classic  nose  and 
say,  "Oh,  pshaw!"  Just  wait  and  see ;  and  if 
it  isn't  so,  just  come  and  tell  me ;  and  I  will  not 
only  concede  the  failure  of  my  prophecy,  but  I 
will  also  lament  the  wickedness  of  good  men  in 
persisting  so  long  in  their  disobedience  to  the 
command  of  Christ,  and  their  folly  in  preferring 
an  invention  of  men  to  an  ordinance  of  God ; 
and  I  will  insist  then,  as  now,  that  immersion 
is  the  only  valid  baptism. 


86  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 


NUMBER  VII. 


"If  you  are  determined  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  this 
matter,  you  will  come  out  a  Baptist ;  there  is 
no  Jielp  for  that. " 

I  HAD  been  engaged  in  the  study  of  baptism 
about  four  weeks,  and  daily  our  practice  seemed 
more  and  more  unscriptural  and  indefensible. 
I  was  in  a  sad  plight.  I  did  not  dare  to  give  up 
the  investigation,  for  a  solemn  vow  obliged  me 
to  continue  it.  And,  besides,  I  desired  most 
earnestly  to  know  and  do  the  truth,  and  the 
truth  only.  But  to  find  the  truth  in  this  case,  I 
must  search  for  it.  It  seemed  to  be  buried  be- 
neath a  vast  heap  of  rubbish,  which  must  be  re- 
moved. But,  on  the  other  hand,  each  day  in- 
creased the  probability,  in  my  mind,  that  I  would 
ultimately  be  obliged  to  give  up  both  sprinkling 
and  infant  baptism,  and  with  them  my  church 
and  denomination,  and  go  over  to  the  Baptists ; 
and  it  seemed  impossible  to  do  that.  I  was  very 
much  in  the  condition  of  that  mystical  man  who 
is  said  to  have  caught  a  bear  by  the  fore  paws. 
If  the  legend  be  true,  the  bear  was  in  the  act  of 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  8/ 

descending  a  tree.  His  hind  feet  had  just  touch- 
ed the  ground,  while  his  fore  feet  were  on  either 
side  of  the  tree.  At  that  critical  moment  the 
endangered  rustic  caught  those  paws  and  held 
them  fast,  the  while  crying  lustily  for  help.  But, 
alas !  no  one  heard  his  cries,  and  no  help  came. 
Time  moved  on,  doubtless  with  leaden  feet,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  rustic ;  but  without  bringing 
relief  to  the  poor  man.  He  did  not  dare  let  go, 
and  it  seemed  impossible  to  hold  on  a  moment 
longer.  If  the  legend  may  be  trusted,  the  man 
was  in  a  worse  condition  than  the  bear.  How 
that  man  got  out  of  the  scrape,  would  be  a  very 
interesting  bit  of  history,  if  only  it  were  well 
written — that  is,  if  he  ever  got  out  of  it  at  all. 
Here  I  was,  grappling  a  problem  which  threat- 
ened my  overthrow,  yet  I  could  not  let  go  my 
hold.  I  am  sure  I  earnestly  desired  help — ef- 
fective help — and,  at  last,  I  thought  it  had  surely 
come. 

I  learned  one  day  that  Rev.   Dr.  S ,  an 

able  Presbyterian  minister,  had  just  arrived  in 
our  town  on  a  vacation  trip,  and  that  he  intend- 
ed to  remain  several  days.  I  immediately  sent 
him  an  invitation  to  occupy  my  pulpit  the  next 
Sabbath,  and  he  accepted  it,  and  then  left  town 
on  a  short  hunting  trip,  from  which  he  returned 
on  Saturday  evening.     I  did  not  succeed,  there- 


88  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

fore,  in  getting  a  personal  interview  with  him 
until  just  before  the  hour  of  service  on  Sabbath 
morning.  I  met  him  at  the  church,  and  request- 
ing him  to  step  aside  for  a  few  moments'  conver- 
sation, I  told  him  about  my  trouble,  saying  that 
I  had  made  a  solemn  vow  to  go  to  the  bottom 
of  the  matter ;  that  I  had  been  studying  it  earn- 
estly and  prayerfully,  almost  day  and  night,  for 
four  weeks,  and  that  the  ground  seemed  to  be 
slipping  away  from  under  me,  and  that,  unless 
I  could  get  help,  I  would  be  obliged  to  give  up 
sprinkling  and  infant  baptism,  and  ended  by  ask- 
ing him  earnestly  to  help  me.  He  listened  calm- 
ly until  I  stopped ;  and  knowing,  as  I  did,  that 
he  was  a  man  of  culture  and  of  much  ability,  I 
confidently  expected  immediate  aid. 

What  sort  of  aid  he  gave  me  will  appear  from 
his  reply,  which  I  give  verbatim : 

' '  I  am  sorry  to  hear  you  talk  so,  for  if  you 
are  determined  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  this  mat- 
ter, you  will  come  out  a  Baptist;  there  is  no 
help  for  that,  and  I  regret  it,  for  I  hate  close 
communion  so.  If  you  have  studied  this  sub- 
ject four  weeks,  you  know  more  about  it  than  1 
do,  for  I  never  studied  it  at  all,  and  I  never  will. 
I  was  born  a  Presbyterian,  I  was  brought  up  a 
Presbyterian,  I  have  lived  a  Presbyterian,  and  I 
mean  to  die  a  Presbyterian.     Of  course,  we  had 


BEHIND    THE   SCENES.  89 

these  subjects  in  the  theological  seminary,  but  I 
gave  no  thought  to  them.  I  have  never  allowed 
myself  to  entertain  any  doubt  about  the  correct- 
ness of  our  practice,  and  I  never  will.  I  think 
I  love  infant  baptism  so  weU  that  I  could  not 
give  it  up,  even  if  I  knew  it  to  be  wrong.  As 
for  myself,  I  am  resolved  never  to  admit  any 
question  about  it;  but  for  you,  with  your  reso- 
lution to  go  to  the  bottom  of  it,  there  is  but  one 
result  possible — you  must  come  out  a  Baptist. 
I  know  enough  about  the  matter  to  know  that; 
and  I  am  sorry  it  is  so,  for  I  hate  close  com- 
munion." 

This  strange,  astounding  speech  seemed  to 
take  away  my  breath,  and  my  power  of  utter- 
ance, for  a  few  moments.  I  was  amazed,  grieved, 
nay,  almost  stupefied  by  it.  At  last,  regaining 
in  some  degree  my  self-control,  I  said  to  him: 

"  My  dear  sir,  how  dare  you  talk  in  this  man- 
ner? You  are  a  public  teacher — a  minister  of 
the  gospel — and  your  people  look  to  you  for  in- 
struction in  divine  things ;  and  here  is  a  question 
dividing  the  people  of  God  in  a  dreadful  manner, 
causing  discord  in  families,  and  separating  many 
who  otherwise  would  be  firm  friends,  bringing 
great  scandal  on  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  very 
bitter  grief  to  many  Christian  hearts — and  yet 
you  declare  that  you  have  never  sought  to  know 


90  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

the  truth  about  it,  and  that  you  never  will.  But 
all  this  time  you  have  taken  sides  in  this  contro- 
versy, maintaining  firmly  before  the  public  that 
your  side  is  right  and  the  other  side  wrong, 
when,  in  fact,  for  aught  you  know,  your  side  is 
altogether  wrong!  And  your  people  are  saying: 
'  We  can  not  be  wrong,  for  Bro.  S.  is  an  edu- 
cated man,  and  a  good  man,  and  he  is  confident 
we  are  right.' 

"And  with  this  great  responsibility  on  you, 
you  deliberately  refuse  to  look  into  the  matter. 
You  resolutely  shut  your  eyes  that  you  may  not 
see,  and  stop  your  ears  that  you  may  not  hear. 
By  your  own  statement,  you  willfully  shut  out 
the  light,  and  make  yourself,  on  this  subject,  a 
blind  leader.  I  ask  you,  sir,  how  you  dare  to 
do  this  thing?  How  can  you  take  this  fearful 
responsibility?" 

He  replied,  quite  unmoved: 

* '  Well,  sir,  I  have  taken  this  responsibility  so 
far,  and  I  intend  to  continue  taking  it  to  the  end ; 
and  if  you  do  not  choose  to  take  the  same  re- 
sponsibility, you  will  have  to  be  a  Baptist;  that 
is  all  there  is  of  it." 

Just  then  the  church  bell  rang,  and  our  inter- 
view ended.  We  went  into  the  pulpit  together, 
and  in  due  time  he  unrolled  his  manuscript  and 
read  a  very  beautiful  sermon  on   "The  Condi- 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  9 1 

tions  of  Growth  in  Grace."  In  eloquent  periods 
he  insisted  that  every  Christian  should  keep  his 
mind  open  to  the  truth;  no  matter  whence  it 
might  come,  no  matter  how  unpopular  it  might 
be,  no  matter  how  unp^atable  it  might  be  to 
him.  He  dwelt,  in  glowing  sentences,  on  the 
necessity  of  candor  and  impartiality  in  the  in- 
vestigation of  truth ;  and  heartiness  in  its  recep- 
tion when  once  its  claim  to  be  received  had  been 
fairly  vindicated. 

My  people  drank  in  the  sermon  much  as  a 
thirsty  ox  drinks  in  the  cold  water;  thinking, 
doubtless,  "What  an  earnest,  heroic  truth-lover 
is  this!     Would  that  we  were  more  Hke  him!  " 

And  I  listened,  fairly  dazed  and  overwhelmed. 
"How  can  he  point  out  the  way  so  clearly,"' 
thought  I,  ' '  and  at  the  same  time  refuse  to  walk 
in  it  himself!  Does  he  not  know  that  every  sen- 
tence he  utters  condemns  his  own  practice?  Is 
he  not  an  arrant,  determined  hypocrite?  Oh, 
God !  is  there  truth  among  men  ?  Can  I  ever 
again  have  any  confidence  in  men?" 

It  was,  to  me,  a  severe  ordeal,  indeed;  and  I 
was  exceedingly  glad  when  the  service  ended, 
and  I  was  at  liberty  to  return  home.  But  I  car- 
ried with  me  a  burdened  heart,  and  resumed  my 
studies  in  deep  sorrow. 

And,  yet,  as  the  days  moved  on,  I  found  in 


92  BEHIND   THE   SCENES'. 

my  soul  a  growing  purpose  to  meet  the  issue 
manfully.  I  would  "buy  the.  truth,  and  sell  it 
not."  No  matter  what  it  cost,  I  would  have  it, 
if  attainable.  Did  not  Jesus  say,  "If  ye  abide 
in  my  word,  then  are  }*e  truly  my  disciples;  and 
ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make 
you  free?"  Did  he  not  pray,  "Sanctify  them  in 
the  truth;  thy  word  is  truth?"  Did  he  not 
come  into  the  world  to  "bear  witness  to  the 
truth?"  Does  he  not  declare  of  himself,  "I 
am     ...     .     the  truth?" 

Why,  then,  should  I  shrink  from  the  truth, 
and  put  my  friendships  among  men  above  the 
truth  of  God?  To  do  so  were  to  confess  my- 
self disloyal  to  Christ,  and  unworthy  of  him. 
No;  I  will  not  do  it.  Whatever  may  come,  I 
will  be  true  to  Christ;  true  to  the  great  trust  re- 
posed in  me  as  a  public  teacher  of  gospel  truth; 
true  to  truth,  which  alone  is  imperishable ;  true 
to  my  own  conscience  and  to  my  own  manhood. 
Thus  the  very  utterances  intended  to  frighten 
me  away  from  the  dangerous  investigation  served 
only  to  show  me  more  distinctly  the  importance 
of  it,  and  the  urgent  need  of  a  fearless  manliness 
and  impartiality  in  conducting  it.  As  an  imme- 
diate result,  I  drew  nearer  to  Christ,  resting  on 
him  more  completely  than  ever  for  the  needed 
wisdom  and  strength ;  and,  assured  of  his  favor 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  93 

and  guidance,  entered  into  the  examination  be- 
fore me  with  greater  zeal  and  resolution  than 
ever. 

Presently  one  of  my  brethren  came  to  me 
and  said:  ^ 

"I  had  a  conversation  with  Rev.  Dr.  S 

on  our  way  home  from  church  Sabbath  morning, 
respecting  your  case." 

"Indeed,"  said  I;   "tell  me  about  it." 

"Well,"  he  replied,  "I  inquired  whether,  in 
his  opinion,  there  is  any  good  reason  why  you 
should  be  so  troubled  about  baptism. 

"He  said:  'No,  none  whatever;  the  matter 
is  all  plain  enough.' 

"Then  I  said:    'Bro.   S ,   can  sprinkling 

and  infant  baptism  be  clearly  proven  from  the 
Bible?' 

'  *  'Certainly, '  said  he,  '  there  is  no  doubt  about 
it  at  all. ' 

"That  encouraged  me  greatly,   and  I   said: 

'  Bro.  S ,  I  am  glad  it  is  so ;  and  I  want  you 

to  give  me  the  proof-texts,  so  that  I  can  show 
them  to  our  pastor;  for  we  love  him  and  do  not 
want  to  lose  him.' 

"'Well,' said  he,  'the  fact  is,  I  am  a  little 
rusty  on  this  subject  just  now,  for  I  have  not 
given  it  much  attention  for  a  long  time,  and 
therefore  I  can  not  comply  with  your  request ; 


94  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

but  when  I  get  home  I  will  send  you  a  book 
which  sets  the  matter  in  a  clear  light,  and  you 
can  hand  that  to  your  pastor  and  request  him  to 
read  it,  and  it  will  set  him  right. ' 

"I  charged  him  nolVto  forget  it,  and  he  as- 
sured me  he  would  not.  I  expect  the  book  in  a 
few  days,  and  when  it  comes,  I  will  send  it  to 
you  immediately,  and  I  want  you  to  read  it  very 
carefully  ;  for,  my  dear  brother,  we  want  you  to 
remain  with  us.     We  can  not  spare  you." 

I  promised  to  read  the  book  with  great  care, 
as  soon  as  possible,  and  he  went  away  very  hope- 
ful about  the  result.  In  a  day  or  two  after  this 
interview  the  book  came,  and  I  sat  down  at  once 
to  a  diligent  study  of  it.  I  had  already  exam- 
ined a  large  number  of  books  written  in  defense 
of  sprinkling  and  infant  baptism,  but  this  one  I 
had  never  seen.  I  gave  it  three  earnest,  search- 
ing examinations,  going  over  each  sentence,  each 
time,  with  the  greatest  care,  hoping  I  might 
somewhere  discover  some  ground  of  hope  of  a 
final  vindication — or,  at  least,  of  a  reasonable 
excuse  for  our  practice  in  baptism.  Alas !  I  was 
keenly  disappointed ;  the  book  was  weaker  than 
any  I  had  before  read.  It  abounded  in  misin- 
formation, false  statements  and  transparent  soph- 
istry. 

Taking  my  pencil,  I  wrote  in  a  fly-leaf:   "I 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  95 

have  read  many  defenses  of  our  baptismal  prac- 
tices, all  of  them  defective  and  inconclusive  at 
best,  but  this  exceeds  all  others  in  weakness  and 
wickedness,  abounding,  as  it  does,  in  statements 
which  the  author  must  'have  known  were  false 
when  he  wrote  them;  and  in  pretended  argu- 
ments which  he  must  have  known  were  trans- 
parent sophistries,  at  the  very  moment  he  penned 
them;"  and  then  returned  the  book  to  my  friend. 
Now  I  am  not  an  accuser  of  the  brethren, 
but  I  venture  this  remark :  That  the  mass  of 
our  pedobaptist  brethren  are  not  very  unlike 
my  friend,  Rev.  Dr.  S .  They  would  prob- 
ably shrink  from  a  plain  avowal  of  the  fact — but 
still  it  is  a  fact — that  they  do  not  examine  this 
matter  candidly,  impartially  and  exhaustively. 
Among  the  multitudes  of  pedobaptist  brethren 
whom  I  have  the  honor  to  know,  more  or  less 
intimately,  I  can  not  recall  five  who  have  ever 
given  this  subject  an  honest,  thorough  examina- 
tion. If  a  pedobaptist  brother  is  indignant  at 
this  statement,  and  disposed  to  challenge  its  ac- 
curacy, let  him  stand  up,  and  in  the  presence  of 
God  solemnly  affirm  that  he  has  himself  given 
it  a  full,  candid  and  thorough  investigation.  And 
if  he  can  do  that,  then  let  him  name  four  others 
— pedobaptist  ministers — who  dare  make  the 
same   solemn   affirmation    for   themselves;   and 


96  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

after  he  has  done  that,  then  let  him  assail  my 
statement,  if  he  deems  it  wise  to  do  so.  The 
truth  is,  the  strongest  defense  of  sprinkling  and 
infant  baptism  that  can  be  written  by  mortal  man 
will  not  bear  an  honest,  critical  examination,  and 
the  long  history  of  attempted  defenses  is  only  a 
sad  recital  of  so  many  able  failures. 

Learning  in  the  dear  school  of  an  experience 
so  painful,  the  leaders  of  the  pedobaptist  forces 
have  adopted  new  and  peculiar  tactics — tactics 
admirable,  perhaps,  among  the  various  devotees 
of  the  pagan  idols,  but  sadly  out  of  place  and 
out  of  character  among  a  Christian  people — the 
tactics  of  indifference. 

' '  Oh,  it  is  no  matter.  One  way  is  as  good  as 
another,"  "No,  I  never  took  the  trouble  to 
investigate  baptism.  It  is  not  worth  while.  It 
is  only  a  form,  anyway,"  "No,  thank  you,  I 
will  not  try  to  study  this  question.  Sprinkling 
will  do  just  as  well  as  immersion,  and  I  like  it  a 
great  deal  better;  and  lam  satisfied."  "No, 
I  don't  care  about  baptism.  It's  only  a  form, 
and  I  prefer  the  reaUties  of  religion."  "Oh, 
baptism  is  nothing.  I  do  not  think  about  it.  I 
believe  in  holiness  and  communion  with  Jesus. 
That's  enough  for  me. "  ' '  Well,  we  arc  all  going 
to  the  same  heaven,  and  it  don't  matter  what 
road  we  take,  so  we  get  there." 


Behind  the  scenes.  ^f 

These,  and  a  thousand  more  of  similar  tenor, 
are  the  expressions  which  greet  you  from  the 
lips  of  the  laity  of  pedobaptist  churches  when 
you  press  the  command  of  Christ  upon  them, 
and  insist  that  they  ought  to  obey  it  in  the  only 
way  possible,  by  being  duly  immersed.  And 
they  all  mean  just  one  thing — indifference  to 
his  command.  And  their  pastors,  as  a  rule,  en- 
courage this  spirit  of  indifference,  telling  them 
it  really  makes  no  sort  of  difference  whether 
they  are  sprinkled  or  immersed ;  yet,  at  the 
same  time,  taking  care  to  favor  sprinkling  with 
all  the  weight  of  their  sacred  office. 

Now,  these  things  are  true  beyond  contradic- 
tion ;  they  are  not  fancies,  but  sober,  sad  facts, 
which  I  do  not  invent,  but  simply  chronicle.  If 
any  man  says  I  am  impeaching  the  characters  of 
good  men,  he  is  mistaken.  I  do  not  impeach 
them ;  but  the  facts — for  which  they  alone  are 
responsible,  the  facts  of  their  own  conduct — 
these  impeach  them.  And  I  respectfully  sub- 
mit that  Jesus  himself  impeaches  them  in  these 
solemn  words,  "Why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord, 
and  do  not  the  things  that  I  say?" 

On  a  certain  Monday  morning  the  pastors  of 
the  various  churches  in  a  certain  city  were  chat- 
ting together  freely  in  the  Ministers'  Association, 
when  the  Presbyterian  minister  introduced  the 
7 


98  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

subject  of  baptism  by  asking  the  Baptist  minister 
whether  he  would  be  wiUing  to  immerse  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Presbyterian  congregation,  with  the 
understanding  that  the  person  so  immersed  would 
become  a  member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Baptist  minister,  in  reply,  expressed  a 
desire  to  be  neighborly ;  but  stated  that  he  could 
not  afford  to  take  in  washing;  yet  he  would 
cheerfully  lend  his  baptistery  (the  mill-race)  to 
his  Presbyterian  brother,  who  could  then  baptize 
the  candidate  himself 

This  brought  on  a  general  talk  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,  when  the  Methodist  Episcopal  min- 
ister made  this  remarkable  statement :  "I  have 
long  noticed  that  when  any  one  of  our  ministers 
undertakes  to  investigate  this  question  of  bap- 
tism, he  is  sure  to  come  out  a  Baptist." 

There  you  have  it.  Investigation  makes  men 
Baptists.  Given  an  earnest  man,  intent  on  learn- 
ing the  bottom  facts ;  let  him  enter  upon  a  vig- 
orous search  for  the  truth,  and  the  result  is  ever 
the  same — he  comes  out  a  Baptist. 

Evidently,  then,  those  who  are  determined  to 
persist  in  sprinkling — and  in  the  sprinkling  of 
infants — and  to  build  up  churches  adhering  to 
those  practices,  are  obliged  to  discourage  inves- 
tigation. But  this  can  not  safely  be  done  openly. 
If  you  tell  an  American  he  must  not  investigate 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  99 

this  or  that — no  matter  what — then  he  will  sure- 
ly arise  and  investigate  that  thing  at  all  hazards. 
You  have  trenched  upon  his  liberty,  or  chal- 
lenged his  curiosity,  and  he  will  let  you  know 
that  he  can  investigate.  No ;  that  will  never  do. 
Open  hostility  to  the  investigation  of  this  bap- 
tismal question  would  explode  every  pedobaptist 
church  in  America  in  ten  years. 

There  is  a  better  way.  Treat  it  as  a  small 
matter;  the  average  American  despises  small 
matters.  Laugh  at  it  as  a  ridiculous  thing ;  the 
true  American  has  a  keen  sense  of  the  ridicu- 
lous. Turn  away  from  it  as  a  frivolous  matter 
— as  one  who  has  far  more  urgent  and  earnest 
work  to  do ;  the  typical  American  is  an  intensely 
earnest  worker.  Continually  speak  of  it  in  terms 
of  disparagement,  as  a  thing  of  no  importance 
whatever,  an  affair  of  no  interest  any  way,  and 
tell  the  people  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  to 
you  how  it  goes.  Do  these  things,  and  multi- 
tudes will  say:  "There,  that's  the  talk.  Who 
wants  to  waste  time  on  little  ridiculous,  frivolous, 
indifierent  matters?"  Now,  I  say  not  one  word 
of  the  motives  of  our  pedobaptist  leaders;  but 
that  in  these  last  sentences  I  have  faithfully  por- 
trayed their  actual  conduct  in  respect  to  baptism, 
and  the  evident  effects  of  that  conduct,  no  sane 
man,  blest  with  two  good  eyes,  two  faithful  ears, 


lOO  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

and  an  honest  heart,  will  care  to  deny.  And  if 
any  man  does  deny  it,  let  him  remember  that 
facts  are  stubborn  things;  and  that  the  facts 
that  I  have  described  abound  in  every  commu- 
nity in  this  Christian  land,  and  that  they  speak 
in  a  voice  no  man  can  drown,  and  tell  a  tale  no 
man  can  disprove.  And  let  him  also  remember 
that  he  who  fights  against  the  evidence  of  facts 
enters  upon  a  hopeless  task.  He  engages  in  a 
bootless  struggle  and  wages  a  foolish  war,  in 
which  his  crushing  defeat  is  only  a  question  of 
time.  In  his  case,  prudence  is  the  better  part 
of  valor.  For  him  no  valid  defense  is  possible. 
What,  then,  must  be  the  motive  underlying 
this  policy  of  indifference?  Is  it,  as  many  claim, 
a  high  degree  of  spirituality?  But  what  sort  of 
spirituality  is  it  that  ignores  the  words  of  Christ  ? 
What  is  the  nature  and  source  of  that  spiritual- 
ity which  scorns  to  inquire  after  the  true  sense  of 
his  words?  How  much  of  Christ  is  there  in  that 
spirituality  which  openly  brands  his  own  ordi- 
nance as  a  mere  form  ?  which  jeers  at  it  as  a  small 
thing?  which  pompously  holds  a  faithful  admin- 
istration of  it  as  a  matter  of  ridicule?  which 
boldly  proclaims  obedience  to  his  word  a  matter 
of  indifference?  Is  there  one  sane  man  who 
dare  pretend  that  such  spirituality  is  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Spirit?    Think  you  the  Holy  Spirit 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  101 

prompts  men  to  cast  contempt  upon  a  command 
of  Christ?  I  tell  you,  Nay.  That  spirituality 
which  moves  men  to  treat  the  word  of  Christ 
with  indifference  is  not  from  above.  The  spirit 
that  generates  it  is  from  beneath.  The  Holy 
Spirit  takes  the  things  of  Christ  and  shows  them 
to  his  people,  that  they  may  love  them,  honor 
them  and  do  them.  It  prompts  to  obedience 
to  Christ,  to  tender  regard  for  his  slightest  wish. 
It  is  another  spirit  that  leads  men  to  hold  up  to 
ridicule  a  solemn  ordinance,  instituted  by  the 
express  command  of  our  Lord.  It  is  a  spirit 
far  from  holy  that  prompts  men  to  treat  that  or- 
dinance as  a  mere  form,  and  its  proper  observ- 
ance as  a  matter  of  indifference.  "Try  the  spir- 
its whether  they  are  of  God."  A  spirituality 
that  pretends  to  pit  love  against  obedience,  that 
is  too  loving  to  obey,  is  simply  a  fraud.  It 
comes  not  from  heaven,  but  from  earth  and  hell; 
and  its  essence  is  neither  less  nor  more  than  an 
intense  selfishness.  These  words  may  seem  se- 
vere, and  they  may  burn  in  spmc  hearts,  but 
they  are  true ;  and  God  give  them  pungency. 

No;  such  spirituality  as  pleads  for  indifference 
to  a  command  of  Christ  is  not,  and  can  not  be 
genuine.  It  is  a  selfish  counterfeit,  and  its  great 
purpose  is  to  shield  an  indefensible  practice  from 
an  honest,  searching  investigation.     It  is  the 


I02  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

countersign  of  indifference,  the  only  remaining 
citadel  of  those  figments  of  popery — sprinkling 
and  infant  baptism.  The  moat  around  that  cit- 
adel is  the  last  ditch  of  pedobaptism,  and  the 
leaders  know  full  well  that  it  is  their  last  line 
of  defense.  So  long  as  men  do  not  investigate, 
the  cherished  inventions  of  men  are  safe;  but 
when  they  begin  in  real  earnest  to  ask,  "What 
is  truth?"  then  the  days  of  those  idols  are  num- 
bered. 

Aye ;  there's  the  rub.  Do  not  think  for  your- 
self, my  pedobaptist  friend.  It  is  dangerous; 
for  "If  y oil  are  determined  to  go  to  the  bottom  of 
this  matter,  you  will  come  out  a  Baptist — there  is 
no  help  for  that y 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  IO3 


NUMBER  VIII. 


* '  We/l,  that  is  the  way  all  those  Gertnan  scholars 
write  on  baptisin,  but  we  think  they  are  mis- 
taken." 

About  six  weeks  after  I  began  the  study  of 
baptism  I  received  a  most  comforting  letter  from 

Rev.  Mr.  S ,  a  Presbyterian  minister.   He  was 

a  very  dear  friend,  and  having  heard  of  my 
troubles  he  wrote  me,  expressing  a  profound 
sympathy  with  me  in  my  search  after  truth.  He 
said  that,  after  all,  my  trials  in  respect  to  bap- 
tism were  nothing  new  in  the  experience  of 
pedobaptist  ministers.  He  said  that  at  some 
period  of  his  ministry  almost  every  one  of  our 
ministers  encountered  the  same  doubts  which 
were  now  harassing  me.  He  said  he  had  passed 
through  the  same  ordeal  years  before,  and  re- 
membering his  own  sufferings  at  that  time,  he 
greatly  desired  to  be  of  some  service  to  me.  He 
reminded  me  of  the  fact  that  he  had  a  large 
library,  much  larger  than  mine  ;  that  he  was 
much  older  than  myself,  and  that  he  was,  there- 
fore, in  a  position  to  give  me  real,  substantial 


104  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

aid  in  my  investigation.  He  then  earnestly  in- 
vited me  to  visit  him  at  his  home,  where  we 
could  go  over  the  whole  subject  together,  aided 
by  the  helps  in  his  large  collection  of  books.  He 
also  desired  me,  if  I  accepted  his  invitation,  to 
send  him  immediately  a  brief  statement  of  the 
points  upon  which  I  was  in  doubt,  that  he  might 
review  them  and  be  the  better  prepared  to  aid 
me  on  my  arrival.  He  closed  by  assuring  me 
that  he  desired  me  to  make  my  investigation 
thorough,  and  that  if,  as  the  result  of  it,  I  felt  it 
my  duty  to  go  to  the  Baptists,  I  should  go  with 
the  earnest  prayers  of  himself  and  all  the  brethren 
for  my  prosperity,  usefulness  and  happiness. 

It  was  a  noble  letter,  doing  great  honor  to  the 
heart  and  the  head  of  the  writer.  I  read  it  with 
great  delight,  and  hastened  to  accept  his  gener- 
ous invitation  and  proffered  aid.  I  sent  him  a 
statement  of  the  doubts  besetting  me,  and  named 
a  time  some  weeks  ahead,  when  I  would  visit 
him,  should  a  kind  Providence  permit.  The 
visit  required  a  long  journey — one  hundred  and 
fifty  miles,  mostly  by  .private  conveyance.  But 
at  the  appointed  time  I  started  in  high  spirits, 
feeling  sure  of  relief,  and  in  due  time  arrived  at 
the  residence  of  my  friend.  It  was  a  farm-house 
in  a  most  beautiful  valley  ;  a  lovely  retreat. 

The  family  gave  me  a  hearty  welcome  and 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  10$ 

immediately  called  my  friend.  He  was  in  the 
field,  superintending  the  labors  of  some  work- 
men. Coming  to  the  house,  he  greeted  me  with 
great  warmth,  making  me  feel  entirely  at  home. 
It  was  about  eleven  o'clock  of  the  forenoon,  and 
he  begged  to  be  excused  an  hour,  as  his  pres- 
ence was  needed  in  the  field  to  give  further 
directions  to  his  men. 

"After  dinner,"  said  he,  "I  will  be  at  your 
service  constantly,  as  long  as  you  may  need 
me. 

Of  course  I  excused  him,  but  being  anxious 
to  improve  every  moment  in  study,  and  having 
been  tendered  the  free  run  of  his  library,  I  begged 
him  to  name  the  best  author  on  baptism,  that  I 
might  study  him  until  the  dinner  hour.  In  re- 
sponse to  this  request  he  assured  me  that  the 
very  best  work  in  his  library  was  Christian 
Knapp's  "Systematic  Theology."  Entering 
the  library  I  soon  found  the  book,  and  turning 
to  the  article  on  baptism,  I  was  instantly  almost 
paralyzed  with  astonishment.  For  this  great 
pedobaptist  scholar  and  theologian  began  by 
affirming  distinctly  and  positively  all  that  the 
Baptists  claim,  and  continued  by  proving  the 
truth  of  those  affirmations.  In  a  word,  his  article 
on  baptism  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  of 
Storr  and   Flatt,    which   is   quoted   largely  in 


I06  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

another  part  of  these  sketches.  To  sum  it  all 
up,  Christian  Knapp  assured  me  that  the  original 
baptism  was  the  immersion  of  the  body  in  water, 
and  that  the  change  to  sprinkling  is  a  matter  of 
regret.  And  chis  is  the  best  author  in  defense 
of  sprinkling  in  the  library !  And  what  is  the 
sum  of  his  defense?  Why,  this — and  this  only 
— that  a  change  has  unfortunately  been  made, 
but  that  to  set  aside  this  invention  of  men  and 
return  to  apostolic  practice  involves  too  much 
trouble.  It  was  a  plain  confession  that  sprink- 
ling has  no  warrant  in  the  word  of  God  ;  that  it 
is,  indeed,  nothing  less  than  rank  disobedience 
to  the  command  of  Christ ;  but  that,  all  things 
considered,  it  is  better  to  continue  to  disobey 
the  Master  than  to  face  the  difficulties  sure  to 
arise  among  the  brethren  if  we  return  to  the 
practice  of  the  baptism  he  commanded — immer- 
sion. 

Presently  my  friend  returned  from  the  field. 
I  met  liim  at  the  door,  greatly  agitated,  and  at 
once  told  him  what  I  had  found  in  Christian 
Knapp.  And  this  was  his  reply:  "  Well,  that 
is  the  way  all  those  German  scholars  write  on 
baptism,  but  we  think  they  are  mistaken."  If  I 
was  astonished  before,  I  was  fairly  confounded 
now.  This  was  help  with  a  vengeance.  How 
long,  at  this  rate,  would  «t  take  to  vindicate  the 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  10/ 

apostolic  character  of  sprinkling  ?  All  the  pedo- 
baptist  writers  of  Germany  confessing  it  an  in- 
vention of  men!  All  of  them  agreeing  that 
Christ  enjoined  immersion ;  that  the  apostles  and 
primitive  Church  practiced  it ;  that  it  continued 
the  practice  of  the  whole  Church  for  many  ages ! 
All  of  them  affirming  that  it  was  supplanted  by 
sprinkling,  not  only  without  divine  authority, 
but  against  the  example  and  the  plain,  explicit 
command  of  Christ ! 

It  is  true  that  my  friend  had  said,  "  We  think 
they  are  mistaken."  But  had  he  not  just  in- 
dorsed Christian  Knapp,  one  of  these  same 
German  scholars,  as  the  best  authority  on  bap- 
tism in  his  library?     What  could  it  all  mean? 

I  was  greatly  perplexed,  but  I  decided  to  keep 
quiet  and  wait  for  further  developments.     I  did 

not  have  long  to  wait.     After  dinner  Mr.  S 

informed  me  that  on  the  receipt  of  my  paper 
containing  a  statement  of  the  points  on  which  I 
was  in  doubt,  he  began  to  look  into  the  matter, 
but  very  soon  found  that  he  had  grown  rusty  on 
the  whole  subject,  and  that  he  could  not  do 
justice    to   it.      He   had,    therefore,    taken   the 

liberty  to  hand  my  paper  to  Rev.  J.  H ,  a 

Presbyterian  minister  residing  in  the  next  village, 
some  two  and  a  half  miles  distant.  He  informed 
nie  that  Rev.  J.    H was  a  very  venerable 


I08  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

man — over  seventy  years  of  age ;  that  he  was 
also  a  man  of  very  fine  culture  and  fervent  piety. 
He  also  assured  me  that  he  was  thoroughly 
posted  on  the  whole  question  of  baptism,  having 
just  completed  a  full  examination  of  it,  to  satisfy 
himself  that  he  was  really  a  baptized  man.  He 
also  informed  me  that  this  was  the  third  time 

since  he  entered  the  ministry  that  Rev.  J.  H 

had  thoroughly  investigated  the  whole  matter  to 
satisfy  his  own  doubts,  and  that  now  he  was  fully 
satisfied  and  firmly  established  in  the  belief  that 
sprinkling  and  infant  baptism  are  right  and  en- 
tirely scriptural.  He  ended  by  requesting  me  to 
go  with  him  to  see  Rev.  J.  H ,  who  was  ex- 
pecting me  and  would  cheerfully  render  me  all 
needed  aid  in  searching  for  the  truth. 

I  went  with  him  and  received  an  introduction 
to  the  aged  and  venerable  gentleman.  I  found 
him  a  person  of  the  most  prepossessing  appear- 
ance, a  man  of  large  stature,  ■  commanding 
presence,  a  fresh,  ruddy  countenance,  pene- 
trating eyes  and  snowy  locks.  I  soon  discovered 
that  he  was  a  fluent  talker,  and  that  he  was  very 
fond  of  talking.  After  a  brief  general  conversa- 
tion Mr,  S departed,  inviting  me  to  return  to 

his  house  in  the  evening. 

Rev,  J.  H occupied  an  arm-chair  in  the 

tniddle  of  a  very  pleasant  sitting-room^  with  hjg 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  IO9 

feet  resting  on  a  stool.  I  sat  upon  a  hassock  at 
his  feet,  and,  looking  up  into  his  genial  face,  I 
said :  "I  come  to  you  as  a  child  comes  to  his 
father,  seeking  instruction.  In  me  you  have  a 
willing  pupil,  anxious  to  be  convinced  that  our 
practice  respecting  baptism  is  right  and  scrip- 
tural ;  but  anxious  above  all  things  to  find  out 
the  truth  and  do  it,  even  though  it  should  require 
great  sacrifices  at  my  hands," 

In  reply,  he  commended  my  desire  for  instruc- 
tion in  the  truth  and  promised  me  the  fullest 
satisfaction,  telling  me  he  had  not  a  vestige  of 
doubt  that  our  views  and  practices  were  right, 
nor  did  he  doubt  his  ability  to  convince  me  fully 
of  their  entire  correctness. 

He  then  launched  into  a  general  talk  on  the 
subject  of  sprinkling  and  the  baptism  of  infants, 
continuing,  without  interruption,  three  hours  and 
a  half  He  then  stopped,  saying  he  was  weary, 
but  if  I  would  return  the  next  day  he  would 
discuss  the  subject  more  fully.  Thanking  him 
for  his  kindness,  and  promising  to  call  on  him 
in  the  afternoon  of  the  next  day,  I  rose  and  re- 
turned to  the  residence  of  Rev.  Mr.  S . 

The  next  afternoon  I  called  on  Rev.  J.  H , 


according  to  promise.  At  five  o'clock  I  resumed 
my  seat  on  the  hassock  at  his  feet,  asking  him 
to  answer  three  questions,  as  soon  as  convenient, 


no  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

assuring  him  that  if  they  were  satisfactorily  dis- 
posed of,  I  could  get  along  with  all  other  matters 
related  to  the  subject,  and  remain  cheerful  and 
contented  in  the  pedobaptist  ranks.  He  agreed 
to  reply  to  them  directly,  and  resumed  his  talk. 

At  six  o'clock  I  ventured  to  interrupt  him, 
and  remind  him  of  his  promise  to  reply  to  my 
questions. 

He  bade  me  be  silent,  saying  I  need  not 
imagine  he  could  not  answer  them ;  that  he  would 
do  so  presently. 

He  talked  on  until  seven  o'clock,  without 
making  any  allusion  to  my  questions,  and  then 
I  ventured  once  more  to  call  his  attention  to 
them,  and  to  request  some  definite  reply. 

Somewhat  impatiently  he  bade  me  keep  still, 
that  he  would  reply  to  my  questions  in  a  short 
time ;  and  again  I  subsided,  and  he  talked  on. 

At  eight  I  again  called  his  attention  to  the 
questions  I  had  submitted,  and  which  he  had 
promised  to  answer,  and  earnestly  besought  him 
to  gratify  me  by  an  immediate  reply  to  them. 

With  great  impatience  he  told  me  I  must  not 
presume  to  dictate  to  him,  that  he  would  answer 
my  questions  in  a  short  time ;  but  that  mean- 
time I  must  permit  him  to  take  his  own  way. 

I  bade  him  go  on  his  own  way,  and  assured 
him  that  I  would  not  interrupt  him  again. 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  Ill 

He  then  resumed  his  talk,  talking  on  until 
half-past  twelve  o'clock,  but  without  even  attemp- 
ting any  reply  to  my  questions.  About  twelve 
o'clock  he  gravely  informed  me  that  baptizo 
might  properly  enough  be  translated  to  droivn. 

That  was  a  little  too  much  for  my  self-control, 
and  looking  him  firmly  in  the  eye,  I  said : 

"Are  you  willing,  reverend  sir,  to  risk  your 
reputation  as  a  scholar  on  that  statement? " 

"  Well,  no,"  said  he,  "you  needn't  take  it  so 
seriously.     I  was  only  half  in  earnest." 

At  half-past  twelve  he  informed  me  that  he 
had  nothing  more  to  say  on  the  subject ;  that  if 
I  was  not  convinced  by  what  he  had  already 
said,  I  probably  could  not  be  convinced  at  all, 
and  ended  by  intimating  a  desire  to  know  how 
his  talk  had  impressed  me. 

I  replied  that  the  desire  was  a  natural  and 
proper  one,  which  it  would  give  me  great  pleasure 
to  gratify. 

"  You  have  certainly  proved  yourself  a  fluent, 
shrewd  talker,"  said  I,  "and  have  given  evidence 
ofa thorough  acquaintance  with  the  subject;  and 
you  have  talked,  in  all,  ten  and  one-half  hours, 
but  in  all  that  time  you  have  not  produced 
one  valid  argument  for  your  cause,  not  one 
argument  worthy  the  name.  You  have  dealt 
in  witticisms,  sophisms,  evasions,  and  all  man- 


112  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

ner  of  tricks,  cute  and  sharp  in  many  instances, 
but  all  of  them  too  transparent  to  deceive  a 
man  of  honest  heart,  open  eyes,  and  an  earnest 
purpose  to  find  the  truth. 

"A  cause  which  can  not  produce  one  sound 
argument  in  a  talk  of  ten  hours  and  a  half  by  a 
champion  so  devoted  and  so  eloquent,  must  be 
very  weak  and  doubtful,  indeed.  I  came  here 
earnestly  hoping  to  be  convinced  that  our  bap- 
tismal doctrines  and  practices  are  right ;  but  your 
address  has  almost  convinced  me  that  they  are 
wholly  wrong,  and  that  the  much-abused  Bap- 
tists are  really  in  the  right." 

I  had  risen  from  my  hassock,  and  was  stand- 
ing in  front  of  him,  looking  at  him  with  great 
earnestness,  not  unmingled  with  some  degree  of 
indignation  at  the  manner  in  which  he  had  trifled 
with  me,  for  no  man  feels  flattered  at  the  dis- 
covery that  another  has  endeavored  to  dupe 
him. 

He  was  greatly  excited  and  deeply  angered  by 
my  plainness  of  speech,  and  replied  with  crush- 
ing severity: 

* '  The  Lord  always  knew  there  would  be  some 
people  gotten  up  on  a  scale  so  narrow  and  bigoted 
that  they  could  not  be  anything  but  Baptists, 
and  so  he  instituted  the  Baptist  Church  for  their 
benefit ;  and  it  is  plain  that  you  are  one  of  that 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES,  113 

number,  and  so  you  will  have  to  go  and  join 
them." 

"  Since  you  acknowledge  that  the  Lord  insti- 
tuted the  Baptist  Church,"  I  replied,  "you  will 
do  well  to  be  careful  how  you  fight  it." 

This  ended  the  discussion,  and  we  went  into 
his  library  and  selected  an  armful  of  books  on 
baptism,  which  I  took  home  with  me  to  examine, 
afterward  returning  them  to  him  by  express.  I 
studied  them  very -thoroughly,  but  it  was  of  no 
use.  The  truth  became  every  day  more  evident, 
and  I  was  obliged  to  accept  it,  or  prove  myself 
false  to  my  solemn  vows,  and  false  to  my  Lord. 
My  Bible,  honestly  construed,  was  a  Baptist 
Bible,  and  I  could  not  make  it  countenance 
sprinkling  or  justify  the  baptism  of  unconscious 
babes. 

I  therefore  tendered  my  resignation  as  pastor 
of  the  Congregational  Church,  assigning,  as  my 
reason  for  doing  so,  the  decided  change  in  my 
views  respecting  baptism.  It  was  sorrowfully 
accepted,  and  I  soon  became  identified  with  the 
Baptists. 

Years  have  passed  since  then — years  of  con- 
stant Bible  study,  and  of  faithful,  earnest  toil  in 
the  Master's  vineyard.  They  have  brought  with 
them  varied  experiences  and  great  changes,  and 
8 


114  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

enlarged  views  of  Bible  truth  and  of  Christian 
duty. 

I  am  rapidly  turning  gray,  and  very  soon  men, 
judging  by  my  whitened  locks,  will  begin  to  call 
me  old ;  but  my  Bible  (Authorized  Version  of 
King  James)  is  still  a  Baptist  Bible.  And  I  have 
long  since  learned  that  God  owns  his  own  ordi- 
nance, when  administered  in  his  own  way,  as  he 
does  not  own  the  sprinkling  of  infants  or  of 
adults. 

Those  German  pedobaptist  scholars  still  con- 
tinue to  write  in  defense  of  immersion,  as  the 
real,  original  and  scriptural  baptism,  and  their 
example  seems  somewhat  contagious,  for  French, 
and  Scottish,  and  English  and  American  pedo-  . 
baptist  writers  are  coming,  more  and  more  every 
year,  to  do  the  same  thing. 

And  yet  brethren,  like  my  friend.  Rev.  Mr. 

S ,  ''rusty''  brethren,  are  of  the  opinion  that 

they  are  mistaken.  And  this  is  only  too  natural, 
for  there  is  no  other  confidence  quite  so  immov- 
able as  the  confidence  of  willful  ignorance. 

Such  rusty  minds  will  continue  rusty  to  the 
end,  for  they  are  entrenched  in  their  own  firm 
resolve  to  remain  as  they  are.     If  you  do  not  1 

care  to  let  in  the  sunlight,  close  the  blinds,  shut 
out  the  golden  beams,  and  rejoice  in  the  glimmer 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  II5 

of  a  tallow  taper ;  but  know  assuredly  that  the 
sun  will  flood  the  earth  with  light,  clothe  it  with 
verdure  and  beauty,  and  fill  it  with  life  and  love- 
liness, despite  your  tallow  taper  and  your  closed 
shutters. 

Shutting  out  the  light  of  truth  does  not  pay 
any  better  than  shutting  out  the  light  of  the  sun. 
It  can  have  only  one  result.  Sooner  or  later  it 
must  bring  moral  blight.  God  is  the  God  of 
truth,  and  those  who  would  be  his  must  love 
the  truth,  and  welcome  it,  and  walk  in  the  light 
of  it.  I  accuse  no  man,  but  to  me  it  is  a  strange 
thing  that  so  many  cling  persistently  to  prac- 
tices, in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  which  are  not 
required  by  his  Word — nay,  which  are  known, 
beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  to  be  neither  less 
nor  more  than  the  inventions  of  men. 

Religious  conservatism,  within  proper  bounds, 
is  a  good  thing;  but  when  it  prompts  men  to 
cherish  error  and  reject  the  truth,  it  has  become 
a  foe  to  all  true  piety  and  Christian  growth. 


Il6  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 


NUMBER  IX. 


' '  IV/iy,  sir,  I  am  surprised  to  hear  you  speak  in 
such  terms  of  that  book.  It's  a  grand  book, 
sir:  a  grand  book.  It  has  no  equal.  Its 
arguments  are  altogether  unanswerable. ' ' 

' '  Well,  to  be  honest  about  it,  I  must  confess  I  have 
not  read  the  book  myself.  I  formed  my  opin- 
ion of  it  from  the  testimotty  of  others.''     .> 

A  MONTH  or  so  after  I  began  the  earnest  study 
of  baptism,  I  called  to  see  the  pastor  of  the 
Congregational  Church  in  a  neighboring  city. 
He  was  not  at  home,  so  I  left  word  with  his 
wife  that  I  was  in  trouble,  and  that  if  he  had 
any  light  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  I  desired 
him  to  let  it  shine  for  my  benefit  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible. In  a  few  days  he  sent  me  a  new  work 
on  the  subject,  from  the  pen  of  a  celebrated  di- 
vine, and  I  hailed  it  with  great  joy,  for  I  had 
heard  much  about  it,  and  I  hoped  to  find  in  its 
pages  the  needed  light  and  rehef. 

So  I  entered  at  once  upon  the  study  of  it. 
At  the  outset,  the  author,  with  his  characteristic 
candor,   declared  that  all  previous  defenses  of 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  11/ 

sprinkling  were  failures,  and  that  if  the  classic 
sense  of  baptize  is  to  be  accepted  as  the  New 
Testament  sense  of  it,  there  is  an  end  of  all  dis- 
cussion, and  any  defense  of  sprinkling  is  simply 
impossible,  since  the  word  in  classic  Greek  al- 
ways means  to  irrimerse.  Hence,  unless  it  can 
be  shown  that  in  the  New  Testament  Greek  it 
has  another  meaning,  we  might  as  well  surrender 
at  once,  and  confess  that,  after  all,  the  Baptists 
are  right. 

But  the  author  knew  a  better  way  than  that. 
He  had  made  a  remarkable  discovery — a  discov- 
ery destined  to  overthrow  the  Baptists  utterly, 
and  settle  the  controversy  forever.  By  some 
means  he  had  found  out  a  fact  hitherto  univer- 
sally overlooked,  namely,  that,  in  the  New  Test- 
ament Greek,  the  word  baptizo,  with  all  its  de- 
rivatives, is  used  in  a  sense  altogether  foreign 
to  its  meaning  in  the  classic  Greek ;  that,  while 
in  the  latter  the  word  always  means  to  inmierse, 
in  the  former  it  never  means  to  immerse,  but  al- 
ways means  to  purify. 

Had  I  been  less  eager  to  find  some  sort  of 
defense  for  sprinkling,  the  very  audacity  of  the 
author  might  have  put  me  on  my  guard.  It 
would,  doubtless,  have  seemed  very  strange  that 
a  fact  so  important  had  been  so  long  overlooked 
by  such  a  vast  throng  of  earnest,  able,  critical 


Il8  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

students  of  the  Bible.  It  would  have  seemed 
almost  incredible  that  the  hosts  of  l)'nx-eyed 
controversialists  had  for  generations  failed  to 
notice  a  fact  so  vital,  and  so  easily  observed. 
Indeed,  had  I  not  been  extremely  anxious  to 
find  it  true,  I  must  have  regarded  it  with  sus- 
picion, as  in  a  high  degree  improbable ;  a  state- 
ment to  be  labeled,  "Important,  if  true,"  and 
to  be  received  only  when  established  by  the  most 
satisfactory  evidence. 

But  I  must  confess  that  I  hardly  thought  of 
these  and  correlated  considerations.  On  the 
contrary,  I  swallowed  the  whole  thing  at  once, 
rejoicing  that  at  last  I  had  found  relief,  and  that 
I  had  got  out  of  the  current  in  which  I  had  been 
drifting,  and  landed  safe  and  sound  on  the  pedo- 
baptist  shore.  So,  with  a  light  heart,  I  plunged 
into  the  study  of  the  book,  not  so  much  to  dis- 
cover the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  author's  erro- 
neous pretensions,  as  to  learn  the  fact  he  assert- 
ed for  myself,  and  to  prepare  myself  successfully 
to  assert  and  defend  it.  But,  alas !  for  our  plans, 
our  hopes,  our  weaknesses!  especially  if  they 
are  pedobaptistic.     A  great  poet  says : 

"The  best  laid  plans  o'  mice  and  men 
Gang  aft  agley," 


BEHIND    THE   SCENES.  II9 

and  I  found  his  words  even  more  truthful  than 
poetic. 

The  book — a  large  one — was  ah  utter  failure. 
The  writer  said  many  beautiful  things.  The 
book  was  full  of  pen-pictures,  entertaining,  elo- 
quent, pathetic,  but  destitute  of  argument.  The 
grand  postulate  with  which  the  writer  opened  so 
boldly  was  not  proven.  That  was  bad — a  wet 
blanket  to  my  fever  of  hope-^but  that  was  not 
the  worst  of  it.  Long-continued  and  searching 
study  of  the  book  convinced  me  that  it  was  en- 
tirely false.  The  writer  proposed  to  prove  that 
the  word  baptizo,  with  all  its  derivatives,  is  used 
in  the  Scriptures  in  the  sense  of  to  purify ;  but 
instead  of  proving  that,  he  proved  that  it  is  not 
so  used.  How  shall  I  describe  my  disappoint- 
ment, the  deep  humiliation  and  bitterness  of  it? 
I  can  not  do  it.     It  was  crushing. 

But,  after  a  littie,  I  gathered  new  courage  to 
go  through  the  book  again,  in  the  faint  hope 
that  I  might  yet  find  some  different  result.  So 
I  plodded  through  it  again  and  again,  only  to 
be  more  firmly  assured  that  the  author  had  not 
only  failed  to  establish  his  proposition,  but  had 
fairly  proven  exactly  its  opposite  to  be  true. 
The  Baptists  could  hardly  desire  a  better  vindi- 
cation of  their  views  than  this  book,   the  su- 


I20  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

preme  effort  of  one  of  their  most  talented  op- 
ponents. 

I  turned  from  it,  almost  sick  at  heart,  yet  not 
willing  to  confess  myself  vanquished.  So  I 
gathered  about  me  the  works  of  many  other 
authors  in  defense  of  sprinkling  and  infant  bap- 
tism, and  continued  my  laborious  investigation. 

While  thus  engaged,  Rev.  G.  S ,  the  Con- 
gregational pastor,  who  sent  me  the  book  which 
I  had  found  such  a  painful,  yet  splendid  failure, 
came  to  visit  me,  and  aid  me  in  my  study.  He 
was  a  lovely  man,  a  very  dear  friend,  and  I  gave 
him  a  most  hearty  welcome.  Of  course,  our 
conversation  was  of  the  one  theme  which  then 
so  imperiously  challenged  my  attention — bap- 
tism. 

I  showed  him  a  letter  from  Rev.  Mr,  C ,  the 

Presbyterian  minister  who,  years  before,  had 
lectured  me  so  vigorously  and  so  successfully  on 
the  unscripturalness  and  destructive  tendency  of 
open  communion  —  an  incident  elsewhere  de- 
scribed in  these  sketches.  He  read  the  letter 
in  great  astonishment,  for  it  was  a  lengthy  and 
pathetic  warning  against  the  Baptists  because  of 
their  offensive  close  communion.  He  who  had 
so  energetically  pictured  the  wickedness  and 
folly  of  open  communion,  and  had  so  heartily 
supported  and  commended  close  communion  as 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  121 

scriptural  and  wise,  now  bewailed  my  tendency 
toward  the  Baptists ;  not  because  their  views  of 
baptism  were  wrong,  for  that  he  did  not  affirm, 
but  because  of  their  "  bigotry"  in  teaching  and 
practicing  the  very  same  principles  he  had  urged 
upon  me,  and  which  he  himself  had  never  ceased 
to  defend  and  practice. 

My  friend  could  hardly  believe  the  evidence 
of  his  senses,  as  he  read  that  remarkable  letter ; 
but  he  knew  the  handwriting  and  style  of  the 
author  too  well  to  doubt  the  genuineness  of  it. 

I  proposed  this  question:  "If  close  commun- 
ion is  scriptural  and  right  for  Presbyterians  and 

Congregationalists,as  o:ir  friend.  Rev.  Mr.  C , 

so  eloquently  maintains,  and  as  we  all  believe 
and  teach,  how  can  it  be  unscriptural  and  wrong 
for  Baptists?"  My  friend  agreed  with  me  that 
it  was  not  fair  to  condemn  in  Baptists  that  which 
we  approved  as  right  in  our  own  practice.    And 

although  he  was  a  warm  friend  of  Rev,  Mr.  C , 

he  did  not  hesitate  to  condemn  his  letter  as  an 
unmanly  and  unworthy  attempt  to  influence  me 
by  an  appeal  to  my  prejudices. 

I  knew  my  friend  was  very  anxious  to  learn 
what  influence  the  book  he  sent  me  had  exerted 
upon  my  mind  ;  but  I  carefully  refrained  from 
any  allusion  to  it,  preferring  that  he  should  in- 
troduce the  matter  in  his  own  way. 


122  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

At  length,  as  we  were  seated  at  the  tea-table, 
he  could  wait  no  longer,  but  bluntly  inquired 
what  I  thought  of  the  book  which  he  had  for- 
warded to  me. 

I  told  him  it  was  well  written ;  that  the  author's 
style  was  lively  and  entertaining,  and  that  no 
one  could  deny  that  the  book  was  readable. 

"But,"  said  he,  "what  do  you  think  of  the 
argument?     Isn't  it  convincing  ?  " 

"  The  argument ! "  I  replied;  "why,  my  dear 
sir,  I  didn't  find  any  in  the  book.  As  I  told 
you,  the  book  is.nvelyand  entertaining,  the  lan- 
guage is  very  fine,  and  there  are  many  eloquent 
passages  in  it ;  but  there  is  no  argument  there 
— not  a  bit  of  it.  As  an  argument,  it  is  an  utter 
failure;  doing  great  discredit  to  its  author." 

"Why,  sir,"  he  replied,  "I  am  surprised  to 
hear  you  speak  in  such  terms  of  that  book.  It's 
a  grand  book,  sir — a  grand  book.  It  has  no 
equal.  Its  arguments  are  altogether  unanswer- 
able." 

Now  I  knew  my  friend  had  never  read  the 
book — at  least,  that  particular  copy  of  it — for 
when  it  came  to  me  most  of  the  leaves  were 
uncut.  So  I  quoted  a  passage  from  pages  where 
I  had  cut  the  leaves,  and  inquired  his  opinion 
of  that. 


15EH1ND   THE   SCENES.  123 

"Tell  me  candidly,  my  friend,  do  you  think 
that  a  sound  argument  ?  " 

' '  Well,  no ;  there  is  no  argument  in  that.  But, 
surely,  you  did  not  find  that  in  Dr.  B.  's  book, 
did  you  ?" 

"Yes,  sir;  I  found  it  in  his  book,  on  pages 
so  and  so,  just  as  I  give  it  to  you." 

Then  I  proceeded  to  quote  another  passage 
from  pages  where  I  had  cut  the  leaves,  asking 
his  opinion  of  that,  and,  as  before,  he  respond- 
ed by  condemning  it  as  altogether  unsound,  but 
suggesting  a  doubt  whether  it  was  really  in  the 
book.  To  this  doubt  I  responded  as  before, 
naming  the  pages  where  he  would  find  it.  Then 
I  named  another  passage,  and  another,  and  still 
another,  each  of  which  was  disposed  of  in  the 
same  way;  the  evident  embarrassment  of  my 
friend  increasing  rapidly  meanwhile,  until  at  last 
he  could  endure  it  no  longer. 

"Well,"  said  he,  "to  be  honest  about  it,  I 
must  confess  I  have  not  read  the  book  myself. 
I  formed  my  opinion  of  it  from  the  testimony 
of  others." 

Then  we  reviewed  the  book  together,  and  he 
heartily  indorsed  my  opinion,  that,  as  an  argu- 
ment, the  book  is  an  utter  failure. 

But  my  amiable  friend  was  not  discouraged 
by  the  evident  failure  of  the  book  he  had  relied 


124  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

upon  SO  ignorantly  and  yet  so  confidently.  He 
entered  into  a  general  discussion  of  the  subject, 
endeavoring  to  convince  me  that,  after  all,  sprink- 
ling is  all  right,  as  a  social  and  climatic  neces- 
sity, and  our  conversation  continued  until  two 
o'clock  in  the  morning. 

He  called  my  attention  to  the  fact — which  I 
could  not  deny — that  baptism  is  only  an  out- 
ward form.  But  when  I  reminded  him  that 
back  of  that  outward  form  is  the  command  of 
Christ  enjoining  it,  and  inquired  by  what  author- 
ity I  could  set  aside  his  command,  he  had  no 
reply  to  offer. 

He  assured  me  that  sprinkling  is  much  more 
convenient  than  immersion,  and  I  was  obliged 
to  confess  he  was  right  about  that.  (To  tell  the 
whole  truth  about  it,  he  had  struck  a  tender 
spot,  for  one  of  the  chief  reasons  why  I  so  much 
dreaded  to  give  up  sprinkling  and  accept  immer- 
sion was  this  very  consideration  of  convenience. 
Immersion  seemed  an  almost  intolerable  cross, 
from  which  I  shrank  with  great  dread  day  and 
night.) 

But  when  I  reminded  him  that  Christ  knew  as 
much  about  the  inconvenience  of  immersion  as 
we  did,  and  begged  him  to  tell  me  whether  the 
plea  of  inconvenience  could  be  relied  upon  as  a 
valid  excuse  for  a  neglect  of  duty,  or  for  a  dis- 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  125 

obedience  to  a  command  of  Christ,  he  was  silent. 

When  he  urged  the  greater  popularity  of 
sprinkling,  I  was  obliged  to  admit  it ;  but  when 
I  inquired  whether  it  would  be  safe  to  plead 
that  popularity  against  the  authority  of  Christ, 
he  was  again  silent. 

Indeed,  he  soon  agreed  with  me,  that  while 
it  would  be  pleasant,  in  this  matter,  to  follow 
the  multitude,  it  would  be  safer,  and  far  more 
Christ-like,  to  obey  the  Master,  and  do  as  he 
commands. 

He  called  my  attention  to  the  Arctic  regions, 
and  told  me  that  immersion  would  not  be  pos- 
sible there  on  account  of  the  intense  cold.  I 
replied :  First,  that  we  do  not  live  in  the  Arctic 
regions,  and  therefore  we  can  not  plead  the  cli- 
matic condition  of  those  regions  as  an  excuse 
for  not  doing  our  plain  duty  here;  and,  second, 
that  the  narratives  of  Arctic  explorers  contain 
accounts  of  persons  getting  into  the  water  amid 
the  ice-floe.s,  and  remaining  there  much  longer 
than  would  be  needful  for  immersion,  and  that 
without  the  slightest  injury.  He  conceded  that 
this  answer  ended  the  Arctic  argument,  and,  as 
a  candid  Christian  man,  he  gave  it  up. 

He  then  called  my  attention  to  a  certain  Rev. 

Dr.  B .     He  said  that  the  doctor  was  once 

a   prosperous,   honored   Presbyterian   minister. 


126  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

but  he  became  troubled  about  baptism,  and  final- 
ly joined  the  Baptists,  and  that  he  had  stood  in 
the  water  so  much,  baptizing  converts,  that  his 
lower  limbs  were  paralyzed,  and  he  was  a  help- 
less cripple. 

"Well,"  said  I,  "if  I  could  be  assured  of 
such  success  in  my  ministry — if  God  would  only 
give  me  such  a  multitude  of  converts — I  would 
not  hesitate  a  moment  longer,  but  go  and  join 
the  Baptists  at  once,  and  suffer  the  loss  of  my 
limbs  gladly." 

"Ah!"  said  my  friend,  "it  is  of  no  use  to 
talk.  You  are  sure  to  become  a  Baptist.  It  is 
only  a  question  of  time.  I  bid  you  godspeed 
in  doing  whatever  you  may  decide  is  your  duty. " 

This  ended  our  discussion ;  and  the  next  day 
he  returned  home,  and  I  returned  to  the  study 
of  the  great  question  of  duty. 

My  friend  fell  into  an  error  only  too  common 
— commending  a  book  he  had  not  examined, 
and  indorsing  an  argument  he  had  not  tested  for 
himself  He  formed  his  opinion  from  the  testi- 
mony of  others.  It  was  not  a  wise  method,  as 
the  event  proved ;  but  it  was,  and  is,  the  method 
of  multitudes.  How  few  examine  these  matters 
for  themselves  !  The  pew  looks  to  the  minister; 
the  minister  looks  to  some  great  doctor;  the 
doctor  looks  to  the  denomination,   and  writes 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  12/ 

as  he  best  may  in  defense  of  its  practice.  And 
who  constitute  the  denomination  ?  Why,  the 
pews  and  pulpits  that  are  looking  to  the  doctor 
for  guidance  and  instruction. 

And  when  the  doctor  has  written  his  defense 
of  the  views  and  practice  of  his  denomination, 
the  word  passes  along  down  the  line  that  it  is  a 
most  triumphant  vindication  of  the  truth.  A 
few  read  it,  and  the  rest  form  their  opinion  of  it 
from  the  testimony  of  others.  This  is  neither 
an  accusation,  nor  a  caricature,  but  a  plain  state- 
ment of  an  undeniable,  though  not  very  compli- 
mentary, fact,  in  the  history  of  Christian  life 
and  doctrine. 

Nor  are  we  to  imagine  it  to  be  confined  wholly 
to  the  various  sects  of  pedobaptists.  It  is  an 
evil  not  altogether  unknown  in  Baptist  circles. 
Far  too  many  people  are  Baptists  for  no  better 
reason  than  that  their  fathers  were,  or  that  some 
friends  are — a  very  poor  reason,  indeed. 

How  much  better  were  it  to  do  as  did  the 
noble  Bereans,  search  and  see  whether  these 
things  are  so!  It  is  the  opinion  of  many  good 
people  that  the  Baptists  are  apt  to  give  too  much 
time  and  thought  to  these  controverted  ques- 
tions. In  some  cases  that  may  be  true — very 
likely  it  is  true  here  and  there ;  but,  as  a  rule,  it 


128  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

is  not  true.  The  masses  of  Baptist  people,  and 
even  of  Baptist  ministers,  are  not  as  well  posted 
in  these  matters  as  they  ought  to  be.  If  every 
Baptist  were  at  all  times  ready  to  give  a  reason 
for  the  peculiarities  of  his  faith  and  practice,  the 
truths  underlying  them  would  speedily  receive 
a  far  wider  recognition  than  they  now  do,  and 
the  period  of  their  ultimate  conquest  of  the 
Christian  world  would  thereby  be  greatly  has- 
tened. If  they  are  worth  contending  for  at  all, 
they  are  worth  contending  for  very  earnestly. 
If  it  be  not  wrong  to  make  them  the  basis  of  a 
separate  organization,  it  is  not  wrong  to  study 
them  thoroughly,  and  to  propagate  them  vigor- 
ously and  victoriously. 

Some  people  seem  to  imagine  that  all  churches 
are  alike,  that  there  are  no  real  differences  be- 
tween them ;  and,  doubtless,  this  is  true  of  cer- 
tain classes  of  churches.  It  is  difficult  to  detect 
any  important  issue  at  stake  between  the  various 
denominations  of  Presbyterians,  or  between  the 
various  kinds  of  Methodists,  or  between  the  Con- 
gregationalists  and  Presbyterians.  And  it  is  real- 
ly a  sad  thing  that  brethren  differing  so  slightly 
are  yet  so  zealous  to  maintain  separate  organi- 
zations, with  distinct  and  often  antagonistic  inter- 
ests, often  producing  painful  and  scandalous  col- 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES,  129 

lisions,  and  unseemly  rivalries  and  antagonisms. 
What  is  this  but  to  divide  the  Church  of  God 
needlessly?  and  what  is  such  needless  division 
but  schism  ? 

Some  people  tell  us  such  divisions  are  a  good 
thing;  but  Jesus  does  not  agree  with  them,  for 
he  prays  earnestly  that  his  people  may  all  be 
one.  The  apostles  did  not  think  so,  for  they 
vigorously  denounce  schismatics,  and  bid  us  re- 
ject them.  Let  no  one  be  deceived.  Those 
who  maintain  needless  divisions  in  the  body  of 
Christ  are  schismatics,  guilty  of  a  very  great  of- 
fense against  our  Lord  and  his  Church,  And 
if  Baptist  Churches  are  not  based  upon  and  de- 
manded by  the  divine  Word,  they  are  schismat- 
ics, and  ought  to  disband. 

But  if  their  existence  is  required  by  that  Word, 
then  all  other  churches  are  schismatic,  and  ought 
to  dissolve.  Or,  in  more  general  terms,  every 
denomination  ought  clearly  to  justify  its  own 
existence  by  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God, 
or  cease  to  exist.  No  man  can  deny  this  except 
by  calling  in  question  the  authority  of  the  divine 
Word ;  but,  if  it  be  true,  then  the  faithful  study 
of  denominational  peculiarities  of  doctrine  and 
of  practice,  is  a  plain,  imperative  duty.  It  is 
not  enough,  in  controverted  matters,  to  consult 
9 


130  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

one's  neighbor,  and  form  an  opinion  from  the 
testimony  of  others.  As  honest  Christian  men, 
we  are  bound  to  search,  and  see,  and  know  for 
ourselves. 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  I3I 


NUMBER  X. 


'  *  TJiey  are  a  wicked  family  ^  and  they  want  the 
babe  baptized  because  they  imagine  that  will 
save  it.  What  shall  I  do  ?  If  I  go  down 
there  and  baptize  it,  I  shall  only  confirm  them 
in  their  mistaken  views  respecting  the  saving 
cfiicacy  of  baptism  ;  but  if  I  do  not  go,  I  shall 
offend  them,  and  that  J  cati  not  afford  to  do, 
for  they  are  rich." 

' '  Well,  I  will  zualk  down  that  way,  and  let  Provi- 
dence decide  the  matter  for  me. " 

While  I  was  investigating  baptism,  and  after 
I  had  reached  the  conviction  that,  whatever 
might  be  true  of  sprinkling,  I  must  wholly  desist 
from  the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  I  exchanged 
pulpits  with  the  pastor  of  the  Congregational 
Church  in  a  neighboring  city. 

At  the  close  of  the  morning  service,    Rev. 

Mr.  R ,  a  Congregational  minister,  who  had 

charge  of  an  academy  in  that  place,  came  to  me, 
saying  that  he  was  in  great  doubt  respecting 
duty  in  an  urgent  case,  and  desired  advice. 

He  said  he  had  received  a  message  just  before 


132  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

the  morning  service  began,  from  an  Episcopal 
family  in  the  city,  informing  him  that  the 
youngest  member  of  the  family,  a  dear  little 
babe,  had  been  fearfully  scalded,  and  that  they 
desired  him  to  come  and  baptize  it. 

"And,"  said  he,  "  I  do  not  know  what  to  do 
about  it.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  my  duty 
in  the  matter?" 

"Well,"  I  replied,  "perhaps  you  will  not 
think  my  advice  of  much  value  when  I  tell  you 
that  I  have  decided  to  baptize  no  more  babes  ? 
I  am  fully  convinced  that  the  practice  is  wrong, 
and,  of  course,  my  advice  is  to  decline  to  do 
anything  about  it." 

"Oh,  well, "said  he,  "I  beUeve  in  infant  bap- 
tism, of  course.  I  have  no  doubt  about  its 
propriety,  as  a  rule,  but  this  case  is  very  peculiar. 
They  are  a  wicked  family,  and  they  want  the 
babe  baptized  because  they  imagine  th^t  will 
save  it.  What  shall  I  do?  If  I  go  down  there 
and  baptize  it,  I  shall  only  confirm  them  in  their 
mistaken  views  of  the  saving  efficacy  of  baptism; 
but  if  I  do  not  go,  I  shall  offend  them,  and  that 
I  can  not  afford  to  do,  for  they  are  rich." 

I  repeated  my  advice  that  he  should  decline 
to  baptize  the  babe,  assuring  him  that  I  deemed 
that  the  only  safe  course.  But  he  was  not  will- 
ing to  accept  such  radical  counsel.     He  seemed 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  133 

altogether  irresolute  and  unwilling  to  act  in  any 
direction,  and  notwithstanding  the  urgency  of 
the  case,  he  continued  to  discuss  the  matter  in  a 
rambling,  desultory  sort  of  way. 

At  last  he  intimated  that  the  babe  might 
possibly  be  out  of  its  misery  and  beyond  the 
need  of  baptism,  and  added,  "Well,  I  will  walk 
down  that  way,  and  let  Providence  decide  the 
matter  for  me." 

Accordingly  he  moved  off  in  the  direction  of 
the  afflicted  home,  which  was  over  half  a  mile 
distant,  I  remained  near  the  church  door,  look- 
ing at  him  with  strange  emotions.  He  seemed 
determined  to  give  Providence  plenty  of  time  to 
decide  the  matter  for  him,  walking  quite  as  slowly 
as  a  healthy,  able  bodied  man  could  walk  on 
such  a  beautiful  autumn  day,  and  on  such  excel- 
lent pavement. 

At  length  he  disappeared  around  the  bend  in 
the  street,  and  I  returned  to  my  stopping  place, 
wondering  what  the  issue  would  be,  and  pitying 
the  bondage  of  my  friend,  and,  it  may  be,  in- 
wardly rejoicing  that  I  was  about  ready  to  re- 
nounce forever  a  practice  of  such  doubtful 
character,  by  which  a  good  man  could  be  so 
hampered,  and,  as  it  were,  compelled  to  walk  a 
race  against  death — the  slowest  winning. 

After  the  evening  service  my  friend  carne  to 


134  UEHIND   THE  SCENES, 

me  in  excellent  spirits.      "Well,  Bro.  R ," 

said  I,  "how  did  Providence  decide?" 

"AH  right,"  he  replied.  "  When  I  reached 
the  house,  the  dear  babe  had  just  departed,  and, 
of  course,  that  settled  the  matter." 

This  incident  made  a  deep  impression  on  me ; 
especially  did  these  words  of  Mr.  R im- 
press me :  "  If  I  go  down  there  and  baptize  it, 
I  shall  only  confirm  them  in  their  mistaken  views 
respecting  the  saving  efficacy  of  baptism. "  Did 
not  his  going  down  there,  under  the  circum- 
stances, have  precisely  that  effect  ?  They  could 
not  know  the  mental  protest  under  which  he  was 
acting.  They  knew  nothing  of  iiis  hesitation 
about  the  propriety  of  the  baptism  in  that  family. 
They  were  in  ignorance  respecting  his  delay  in 
starting.  They  had  not  seen  him  loitering  by 
the  way,  in  the  hope  that  on  his  arrival  the  babe 
might  be  at  rest.  All  these  things  were  unknown 
to  them.  He  had,  indeed,  arrived  too  late,  but 
for  that  he  had  apologized  in  apparent  sorrow. 
His  presence  was  evidence  of  his  willingness  to 
perform  the  service  desired.  It  was  also  proof 
that,  in  his  judgment,  that  service  was  both  right 
and  necessary.  They  had  a  right  henceforth  to 
quote  his  response  to  their  request  as  an  endorse- 
ment of  their  views  of  infant  baptism,  and  he 
could  challenge  that  right  only  by  a  confession, 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  IJS 

at  once  insulting  to  them,  and  damaging  to  his 
own  reputation  as  a  man  of  thorough  integrity. 

I  do  not  doubt  that  he  was  afraid  to  baptize 
the  babe,  lest  he  might  thereby  confirm  that 
wicked  family  in  their  mistaken  views  of  the 
saving  efficacy  of  infant  baptism.  But  he  lacked 
the  manly  decision  and  courage  to  take  the  only 
step  by  which  he  could  escape  such  a  result — a 
kind  but  firm  denial  of  their  request,  and  an 
honest  statement  of  the  true  reason  for  it. 

But  hold.  Let  me  not  be  too  severe.  It  was 
not  altogether  a  lack  of  courage.  He  was  an 
advocate  of  infant  baptism — a  man  of  mature 
years  and  broad  scholarship.  How  could  he 
deny  the  saving  efficacy  of  a  practice,  which, 
after  all,  can  be  defended  on  no  other  plea? 
Imagine  him  saying  to  that  wicked  family,  "  No, 
I  can  not  baptize  your  babe.  You  think  there 
is  a  saving  efficacy  in  such  baptism,  but  that  is  a 
great  mistake.  You  rely  upon  baptism  for  sal- 
vation, but  it  can  not  save  you.  In  it  there  is 
no  saving  virtue.  If  I  were  to  baptize  your 
babe,  the  baptism  would  do  it  no  good.  It  is  a 
mere  idle  ceremony,  very  pretty  and  sentimental, 
but  of  no  real  use.  Under  other  circumstances 
it  would  give  me  pleasure  to  apply  it  to  your 
babe,  but  you  take  it  altogether  too  seriously. 
You  think  it  really  means  something — that  it 


136  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

will  make  your  babe  a  partaker  of  the  benefits 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  thereby  save  it — 
that  it  is  really  circumcision  in  another  form, 
and,  therefore,  necessary,  lest  your  babe  be  cut 
off  from  all  inheritance  with  God's  people,  and 
that  it  is  essential  to  the  putting  away,  or  wash- 
ing away  the  stains  of  original  sin.  I  admit  that 
we  are  continually  affirming  these  very  things, 
and  many  others  like  them,  in  our  attempts  to 
defend  infant  baptism  from  the  assaults  of  the 
Baptists,  but  then  we  do  not  really  believe  them 
ourselves.  I  beg  you,  do  not  be  offended  with 
me.  I  am  in  a  very  difficult  spot.  I  do  not 
want  to  go  back  on  infant  baptism,  for  it  is  a 
very  useful  contrivance,  by  which  such  of  our 
children  as  live  to  mature  years  are  pre-empted, 
as  it  were,  for  our  own  churches,  but  otherwise 
it  is  of  no  value  whatever.  As  I  have  said,  you 
take  it  altogether  too  seriously,  and  rest  upon  it 
for  salvation ;  and  I  dare  not  baptize  your  babe 
lest  I  encourage  you  in  a  delusion  so  deadly.  I 
therefore  beg  you  to  excuse  me  from  baptizing 
your  babe,  and  please  do  not  be  offended  with 
me,  for  I  can  not  help  myself;  and,  indeed,  I 
desire  your  favor  and  patronage,  for  you  are  rich 
and  influential." 

Now  that  would  be  a  very  strange  speech,  I 
grant  you,  but  for  thousands  gf  Protestant  min- 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  137 

isters  who  practice  infant  baptism  it  would  be 
an  honest  speech,  or  at  least  as  honest  as  the 
case  would  admit.  But  what  would  a  ' '  wicked 
family"  be  apt  to  say  in  reply? 

It  is  often  claimed  by  Baptist  writers  that 
every  possible  plea  for  infant  baptism  involves 
the  idea  of  a  saving  efficacy  in  the  rite,  and  it 
would  be  difficult  for  the  most  ardent  friend  of 
the  "institution"  to  name  a  half  dozen  pleas  in 
its  behalf  that  are  not  fairly  open  to  this  charge. 
Indeed,  our  pcdobaptist  friends  of  the  more 
evangelical  denominations  are  sadly  in  want  of 
some  plea  for  the  practice  which  clearly  does 
not  involve  the  idea  of  sacramental  salvation. 
There  is  one  such  plea,  as  I  happen  to  know.  I 
never  saw  it  in  print,  but  having  heard  it  urged 
by  more  than  one  intelligent,  cultured  pedo- 
baptist  minister,  in  defense  of  his  own  conduct 
in  baptizing  certain  babes,  I  am  very  generously 
inclined  to  give  all  our  pedobaptist  friends  the 
benefit  of  it. 

Some  years  ago,   while  I  was  pastor  of  the 

Baptist   Church  in  the  city  of  M ,   certain 

friends — members  of  the  "  Disciples  "  Church — 
came  to  me  with  certain  well-founded  complaints 
against  pedobaptist  ministers  in  our  city  ;  com- 
plaints valid  against  a  large  share  of  the  ministers 
of  pedobaptist  churches  everywhere, 


138  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

At  the  next  meeting  of  our  Ministers'  Associa- 
tion I  said  to  the  brethren:  "Our  'Disciples' 
brethren  have  a  grievance  of  considerable  mag- 
nitude. They  complain  of  your  conduct,  in  a 
certain  matter,  as  wanting  in  a  manly  consist- 
ency." 

Instantly  all  were  alert,  two  asking  in  the 
same  breath : 

"Why?   What  is  it?   What  have  we  done ? " 

"Well,"  I  replied,  "they  assure  me  that 
whenever  a  babe  is  likely  to  die  unbaptized,  you 
rush  off  and  sprinkle  it — an  act  which  plainly 
says  that  you  beHeve  in  the  saving  eflficacy  of  it; 
but  when  they  affirm  that  you  believe  baptism 
to  be  essential  to  salvation,  you  go  back  on  your 
own  actions  and  say  you  do  not  believe  any  such 
thing ;  and  they  complain  that  in  this  matter 
you  are  lacking  in  a  manly  consistency." 

For  a  few  moments  there  was  an  expressive 
silence  in  our  midst;  for  several  of  the  brethren 
had  very  recently  sprinkled  dying  babes,  and 
the  facts  were  well  known.  The  pastor  of  the 
Congregational  Church  was  the  first  to  break  the 
solemn  silence. 

"Well,"  said  he,  "I  might  as  well  own  up. 

Mrs.  sent  for  me  in  great  haste  to  baptize 

her  babe,  which  was  about  to  die,  and  I  did  it. 
Of  course  I  knew  there  is  no  saving  efficacy  in 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  1 39 

baptism;  I  knew  it  would  do  the  babe  no  good 
whatever ;  but  the  mother  wanted  it  done,  and 
I  did  it  to  please  her."  Then,  after  a  moment's 
silence,  he  added:  "Well,  I  am  resolved  that 
I  will  never  do  so  again  ;  never." 

Then  the  pastor  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  said: 

*'  I  was  sent  for,  not  long  ago,  by  Mrs.  

under  similar  circumstances,  and  I  went  and 
baptized  the  child.  Of  course  I  know  as  well  as 
any  one  that  there  is  no  virtue  in  baptism  to 
save  the  soul — not  a  bit  of  it — but  I  did  it  to 
please  the  parents." 

Then  another  pastor  made  a  similar  explana- 
tion of  his  own  conduct,  giving  the  same  plea, 
that  "he  did  it  to  please  the  parents."  Now  I 
submit  that  this  plea  for  infant  baptism  does  not 
involve  the  idea  of  saving  efficacy  in  it.  On  the 
contrary,  it  expressly  discards  all  such  notions. 
And  it  is  certainly  an  amiable  plea — "I  did  it 
to  please  the  parents."  A  minister,  no  matter 
even  if  he  were  a  Baptist,  could  not  easily  go 
farther  in  amiability  than  that.  He  knows  the 
child,  even  in  the  presence  of  death,  is  just  as 
well  off  without  it ;  and  it  can  do  the  little  sufferer 
no  good — "  not  a  bit  of  it  " — in  any  way;  and 
he,  poor  man,  may  be  fairly  overrun  with  work ; 
but  he  drops  everything  at  once,  and  off  he  goes 


I40  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

to  baptize  that  dear  little  dying  babe.  Now,  if 
it  were  an  adult,  a  penitent  believer,  that  called 
for  baptism,  other  motives  might  induce  even  a 
very  busy  Baptist  minister  to  drop  everything 
else  and  administer  the  ordinance,  even  amid 
the  snow  and  ice  and  the  chilling  blasts  of  mid- 
winter. In  fact,  hundreds  of  Baptist  ministers 
have  gone  out  in  the  very  worst  weather  to  bap- 
tize people  who  were  in  no  apparent  danger  of  a 
speedy  death.  They  have  meekly  stepped  down 
into  the  freezing  water,  apparently  surrounded 
by  very  many  discomforts  ;  but  they  did  it  only 
because  God  required  it  of  them.  I  do  not 
believe  one  of  them  would  ever  do  it  "just  to 
please  the  parents "  of  the  candidates,  or  to 
please  any  other  friends.  They  are  not  amiable 
enough  for  that.  In  this  peculiar  kind  of  ami- 
ability our  pedobaptist  pastors  excel.  Not  only 
do  they  often  sprinkle  babes  "just  to  please  the 
parents,"  but  not  infrequently  they  have  been 
known  to  immerse  people,  and  even  such  people 
as  had  been  sprinkled  in  infancy,  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  pleasing  them.  They  certainly  de- 
serve their  reward  for  an  amiability  so  compliant. 
Indeed,  I  think  this  plea,  "I  did  it  to  please 
the  parents,"  ought  to  be  used  a  great  deal  more 
freely  by  pedobaptist  ministers.  The  Baptists 
could  not  charge  that  it  implies  a  saving  efficacy 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  ?4I 

in  the  rite.  It  is  short  and  crisp  as  well  as 
amiable.  Everybody  can  understand  it  at  once. 
It  needs  no  labored  explanation  or  learned  de- 
fense. Then  it  is  so  definite  in  locating  the 
authority  in  the  matter  with  the  parents,  and  in 
putting  the  responsibility  upon  them,  that  it 
leaves  nothing  more  to  be  said.  It  classes  infant 
baptism  along  with  rattles,  marbles  and  other 
toys,  which  one  may  or  may  not  give  to  the 
child  of  his  friend,  just  as  the  parent  may  fancy. 
Of  course  the  parents  must  feel  highly  flattered. 
They  are  people  to  be  "pleased."  Here  are 
grave  and  reverend  pastors  with  no  more  sacred 
duty  than  just  to  ''please''  them.  Here  is  a 
religious  rite  made  entirely  subservient  to  their 
pleasure.  If  they  like  it — all  right.  It  shall  be 
artistically  arranged  at  their  bidding ;  but  if  they 
do  not  like  it,  they  need  never  have  it  in  their 
houses.  If  they  desire  it  for  their  httle  ones,  it 
is  a  very  beautiful  Bible  ordinance,  which  they 
can  not  prize  too  highly;  but  if  they  are  preju- 
diced against  it,  they  may  spit  upon  it  and  kick 
it  out  of  sight,  for  it  is  only  a  bit  of  the  rubbish 
of  old-time  church  usages,  you  know. 

Here  is  flexibility  for  you  ;  just  the  sort,  too, 
that  the  pedobaptist  pastor  needs  now  in  every 
community.  Take  any  pedobaptist  pastor  you 
please,  Presbyterian,  Congregational  or  Meth- 


I42  BEHIND   the:   SCEXlIi:-. 

odist,  and  while  some  of  the  members  revere 
infant  baptism  as  a  Bible  ordinance,  others  of 
them  can  hardly  endure  it  at  all.  Jones  and  his 
wife  say:  "  It  is  a  blessed  thing.  So  sweet,  so 
beautiful,  so  sacred !  "  And  they  have  all  the 
little  Joneses  duly  christened ;  and  when  the 
dear  pastor  calls  there,  the  talk  is  largely  of  this 
beautiful,  sentimental  rite,  and  of  the  "children 
of  the  church. "  But  there  is  Bro.  Miller.  He 
abhors  the  whole  thing,  and  his  wife  says:  "No 
minister  shall  ever  sprinkle  a  child  of  mine." 
And  when  the  dear  pastor  ends  his  visit  at  the 
residence  of  Bro.  Jones,  and  enters  the  home  of 
Bro.  Miller,  he  leaves  infant  baptism  outside  to 
take  care  of  itself  Now,  see  how  this  plea  helps 
him  out.  If  he  affirms  that  infant  baptism  is 
really  a  divine  institution,  he  will  feel  obliged  to 
defend  it  at  Bro.  Miller's  and  he  will  hardly  fail 
to  get  into  trouble;  while  Bro.  Miller  and  his 
family,  if  he  should  become  urgent  in  pressing 
them  to  obey  it,  will  tilmost  certainly  go  off  and 
join  the  Baptists.  But  it  is  only  a  something  to 
be  done,  or  to  be  left  undone,  "to  please  the 
parents."  So,  at  Bro.  Jones',  he  pleases  the 
parents  by  descanting  upon  its  beauties  ;  and  at 
Bro.  Miller's  he  pleases  the  parents,  and  indeed 
the  whole  family,  by  quietly  ignoring  it  alto- 
gether.    Sarcastic?     No,  sir.     Simply   true   to 


BEHIND  THE  SCfiKES.  143 

the  actual  condition  of  things  in  thousands  of 
pedobaptist  churches  to-day.  If  any  man  doubts 
it,  let  him  open  his  eyes  and  look  about  him  a 
little,  and  he  will  doubt  it  no  longer.  Demoral- 
izing ?  Yes,  but  not  more  so  than  infant  baptism 
itself.  Not  more  so  than  any  other  defense  of 
it.  It  does  demoralize  many  men,  but  it  also 
demoralizes  infant  baptism  by  degrading  it  into 
a  mere  bauble  which  intelligent  and  honest 
parents  will  soon  learn  to  detest. 

But  no  matter  what  may  be  the  tendency,  or 
the  result  of  this  plea,  it  is  the  only  practicable 
one  left  to  those  devotees  of  infant  baptism  who, 
in  their  hearts,  do  honestly  discard  the  figment 
of  sacramental  salvation.  If  they  retain  infant 
baptism  at  all,  it  must  be  simply  as  a  mere 
matter  of  taste,  or  as  a  well-understood  expedient 
to  retain  their  hold  upon  the  children  and  in  due 
time  draw  them  into  the  same  fold  with  them- 
selves. With  these  good  people  it  is  a  time  of 
transition  and  doubtful  measures,  but  they  are 
growing  toward  the  truth  and  the  light,  and  every 
year  they  become  more  evangelical,  and  in  ex- 
actly the  same  ratio  infant  baptism  declines 
among  them.  And  the  day  is  not  far  distant 
when  they  will  cease  to  sprinkle  babes,  even  "to 
please  the  parents." 


144  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 


NUMBER  XI. 


'  ^How  can  a  man  write  as  this  man  does,  and  still 
co7itimie  to  practice  sprinklitig?" 

While  pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  the 
village  of  O ,  I  received  a  call  from  the  pas- 
tor of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  of  a  somewhat 
remarkable  character. 

He  was  a  quiet,  pleasant  gentleman,  rather 
cool  and  reserved  in  manner,  and  a  little  inclin- 
ed to  have  his  own  way ;  but  honorable  and 
noble,  generous  and  kind.  In  his  way  he  was 
something  of  a  philosopher,  taking  life  pleasant- 
ly and  smoothly.  He  used  to  say,  laughingly, 
that  ' '  while  it  may  be  wicked  to  get  angry,  yet 
a  little  holy  indignation  is  sometimes  quite  nec- 
essary." But  in  all  our  acquaintance  I  had  never 
seen  him  indignant  at  anything,  until  that  par- 
ticular day  already  alluded  to,  when,  to  my  great 
surprise,  he  was  deeply  agitated,  and  evidently 
very  much  offended.  Without  waiting  to  be 
seated,  or  even  to  remove  his  hat  (he  was  usu- 
ally a  polite  man),  he  cried:  "Sir,  I  called  to 
ask  you  a  question,  and  I  want  a  direct  answer 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  145 

— yes  or  no — and  I  will  not  be  put  off  with  any- 
thing else." 

It  was  a  beautiful  day,  a  day  that  Italy  might 
possibly  equal,  but  certainly  could  not  excel. 
The  wonderful  blue  of  the  upper  deep — cloud- 
less and  serene — seemed  the  very  emblem  of 
peace,  itself  a  curtain  vailing  from  mortal  eyes 
the  elysian  fields  just  beyond.  The  earth  re- 
posed in  a  loveliness  and  beauty  fairly  entranc- 
ing. It  was  a  day  for  reveries,  for  poetic  vis- 
ions and  artistic  dreams,  and  communings  with 
Nature  and  Nature's  God,  amid  the  dim  aisles 
of  the  grand  old  forests,  God's  earliest  and  ho- 
liest temples.  But  into  the  glowing  harmonies 
of  a  scene  so  perfect,  came  crashing  along  this 
harsh,  discordant  note.  What  could  it  mean? 
Had  a  bolt  of  forked  lightning  and  an  earth-riv- 
ing peal  of  thunder  fallen  that  instant  from  mid- 
heaven,  I  could  have  been  but  slightly  more 
startled  and  astonished.  The  shock  staggered 
me  for  a  moment,  but  presently  ' '  Richard  was 
himself  again,"  and  I  gently  prevailed  on  my 
friend  to  be  seated. 

"Now,  my  dear  brother,"  said  I,  when  at  last 
his  hat  was  hanging  gracefully  on  the  rack,  and 
he  was  settled  nicely  in  my  old  study-chair; 
"now,  my  dear  brother,  ask  as  many  questions 
as  you  please,  and  I  pledge  you  an  immediate, 
lo 


146  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

Straight,  categorical  reply.  I  will  say  yes  or  no, 
or,  I  don't  know,  or  whatever  other  word  or 
words  the  nature  of  your  question  may  require. 
Please  say  freely  all  you  have  it  in  your  heart  to 
say." 

Looking  me  straight  in  the  eye,  and  relaxing 
none  of  his  firmness  and  fierceness  of  manner 
and  tone,  he  replied : 

"Sir,  did  you  tell  Elder  W ,  a  few  days 

ago,  that  Dr.  Lange  translates  Christ's  word, 
baptizing,  by  immersing  f  Did  you  tell  him,  sir, 
that  Lange  translates  John's  words  (Matt.  iii.  1 1), 
'  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water, '  by  the  words, 
'I  indeed  immerse  you  in  water?'  " 

Returning  his  intense  gaze  with  interest,   I 

replied :    ' '  Yes,  sir,  I  told  Elder  W all  that, 

and  more  of  the  same  sort." 

"Why  did  you  do  it?"  said  he,  his  voice 
trembling  with  excitement. 

"Because,"  I  replied,  "I  thought  he  ought 
to  know  it. " 

"Now,  sir,"  said  he,  "do  you  not  know  that 
Lange  is  a  pedobaptist,  a  prominent  divine  and 
theologian  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Germany? 
Do  you  not  know,  sir,  that  he  practices  sprink- 
ling?" 

"Certainly,"  said  I,  "that  is  all  true;  no  one 
doubts  it." 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  1 4/ 

"Yes,"  he  replied,  "no  one  doubts  it;  but 
how,  then,  dare  you  make  such  statements  about 
him,  as  you  confess  you  did  make  to  a  ruling 
elder  of  my  church?  How  dare  you  say  that 
he  translates  baptizo  to  immerse  f  " 

"Why,  sir,"  I  answered,  "I  dared  to  say  it 
because  it  is  true." 

"True!  "  he  cried  ;  "true!  you  surely  do  not 
mean  to  persist  in  your  strange  statement,  after 
confessing  that  he  practices  sprinkling?" 

"Why  not,"  said  I,  "when  it  is  true?  As 
you  claim,  he  does  practice  sprinkling,  but  he 
also  translates  baptizo,  and  its  derivatives,  to  im- 
merse, and  thereby  confesses  that  Christ  has  com- 
manded him  not  to  sprinkle  but  to  immerse ;  and 
I  have  a  right  to  state  the  fact — it  is  a  public 
matter." 

"I  tell  you,"  he  replied,  "there  is  some  mis- 
take about  this.  Your  statement  can  not  be 
true.  Dr.  Lange  is  a  good  man,  and  a  great 
man,  and  he  would  never  do  a  thing  so  absurd." 

"Mr.  K ,"saidl,  "have  you  Dr.  Lange's 

work  on  Matthew  in  your  library?" 

"Why,  yes,  I  have  it,"  he  replied. 

"Well,  then,"  I  rejoined,  "why  did  you  not 
examine  it  before  coming  here  to  accuse  me  of 
misrepresentation." 

"Why,  sir,"  said  he,  "I  knew  it  could  not 


148  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

be  true;  and  I  could  not  believe  you  had  really 
said  so;  and  I  thought,  *I  will  just  run  in  and 
ask  him  about  it,  and  that  will  settle  it. '  Of 
course,  I  might  have  looked  into  the  book,  as 
you  say,  but  of  what  use  would  that  be  ?  Dr. 
Lange  is  a  Lutheran.  He  practices  sprinkling 
habitually,  and  it  is  not  possible  that  he  trans- 
lates baptizo  to  immerse,  for  that  would  condemn 
his  own  practice." 

I  did  not  reply  to  this ;  but  taking  Dr.  Lange's 
work  on  Matthew  from  a  shelf  just  behind  me, 
I  opened  to  Matt.  iii.  1 1,  and,  handing  the  book  to 

Mr,  K ,  I  bade  him  read  for  himself.    Then, 

sitting  down  just  in  front  of  him,  I  watched  his 
countenance  as  he  read. 

Poor  fellow !  I  really  pitied  him.  He  grew 
red  and  pale  by  turns;  and  no  wonder,  for  there 
he  not  only  read,  "I  indeed  immerse  you  in  wa- 
ter," but,  also,  "  He  that  Cometh  after  me  .  .  . 
shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  fire ;" 
and  then  followed  an  elaborate  explanation  of 
immersion  as  the  symbol  of  a  complete  regenera- 
tion, a  change  equivalent  to  a  Death  and  a  Res- 
urrection, and  all  that  from  the  pen  of  a  great 
and  good  man,  who,  contrary  to  his  own  trans- 
lation of  the  divine  Word,  was  in  the  habit  of 
sprinkling,  instead  of  immersing,  as  the  Lord 
commands. 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  1 49 

At  last  my  friend  looked  up,  the  very  picture 
of  astonishment,  and  in  a  bewildered  but  em- 
phatic way,  he  said : 

"How  can  a  man  write  as  this  man  does,  and 
still  continue  to  practice  sprinkling?" 

"Ah,"  said  I,  "that  is  the  problem;  but  you 
see  that  I  was  correct,  do  you  not  ?  You  con- 
cede that  my  statements  about  this  matter  were 
true,  do  you  not?" 

"Oh,  yes,"  he  replied,  "your  statements  are 
true ;  and  I  most  heartily  confess  the  gross  in- 
justice I  have  so  foolishly  and  unwittingly  done 
you,  and  I  earnestly  beg  your  pardon  for  treat- 
ing you  as  I  did.  I  am  very  sorry  for  it,  in- 
deed." 

"Say  no  more  about  that,  my  dear  brother," 
I  responded.  "I  most  heartily  and  fully  for- 
give you,  and  I  sympathize  with  you  most  deep- 
ly in  your  feeling  of  pain  at  the  gross  inconsist- 
ency of  those  men  who  frankly  confess  that  Jesus 
enjoins  immersion,  and  then  coolly  keep  right 
on  sprinkling  in  his  name.  Do  you  know  what 
Dr.  Chalmers  says  about  immersion?" 

"No,  sir;  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  ever  saw 
it,"  he  replied. 

I  handed  him  ''Chalmers'  Lectures  on  Romans, " 
opened  at  page  152,  at  the  beginning  of  his  lec- 
ture on  Romans  vi.   3-7,  and  here  is  what  he 


150  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

read  from  the  pen  of  the  greatest  divine  Scottish 
Presbyterianism  ever  produced : 

"The  original  meaning  of  the  word  baptism 
is  immersion;  and  though  we  regard  it  as  a  point 
of  indifferency  whether  the  ordinance  so  named 
be  performed  in  this  way  or  by  sprinkHng;  yet 
we  doubt  not  that  the  prevalent  style  of  the  ad- 
ministration in  the  apostles'  days  was  by  an  act- 
ual submerging  of  the  whole  body  under  water. 
We  advert  to  this  for  the  purpose  of  throwing 
light  on  the  analogy  that  is  instituted  in  these 
verses.  Jesus  Christ  by  death  underwent  this 
sort  of  baptism,  even  immersion  under  the  sur- 
face of  the  ground,  whence  he  soon  emerged 
again  by  his  resurrection.  We,  by  being  bap- 
tized into  his  death,  are  conceived  to  have  made 
a  similar  translation :  in  the  act  of  descending 
under  the  water  of  baptism,  to  have  resigned  an 
old  life ;  and,  in  the  act  of  ascending,  to  emerge 
into  a  second  or  a  new  life,  along  the  course  of 
which  it  is  our  part  to  maintain  a  strenuous 
avoidance  of  that  sin  which  as  good  as  expung- 
ed the  being  that  we  had  formerly,  and  a  stren- 
uous prosecution  of  that  holiness  which  should 
begin  with  the  first  moment  that  we  were  ush- 
ered into  our  present  being,  and  be  perpetuated 
and  make  progress  toward  the  perfection  of  full 
and  ripened  immortality." 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES,  I^I 

As  my  friend  read  these  grand  words  of  the 
great  preacher,  he  seemed  deeply  troubled.  At 
length  he  closed  the  book,  saying,  as  he  did  so :' 

"I  can  not  understand  it.  How  can  a  man 
write  as  these  men  do,  and  still  continue  to  prac- 
tice sprinkling?" 

"Ah,  my  friend,"  I  replied,  "that  is  a  very 
great  mystery,  but  it  is  none  the  less  a  fact.  If 
you  will  carefully  look  into  the  matter,  you  will 
find  that  nearly  all  of  your  great  scholars,  theo- 
logians and  divines  write  substantially  as  these 
men  write,  and  continue  to  practice  substantial- 
ly as  these  men  practice.  I  will  not  accuse  them ; 
to  his  own  Master  must  each  of  us  answer.  But 
there  stands  the  fact,  open,  undeniable,  and  to 
me  altogether  unaccountable,  that  a  great  host 
of  men — apparently  wise  and  good  men — con- 
tinue through  life  in  open,  plain,  constant  diso- 
bedience to  the  command  of  Christ,  themselves 
being  the  judges.  For  if  I  affirm  solemnly,  and 
as  a  public  teacher,  that  Christ  commands  me  to 
do  a  certain  thing,  and  that  his  apostles  habit- 
ually did  that  thing  in  obedience  to  his  word, 
and  that  the  doing  of  it  inculcates  the  great, 
vital  truths  of  Christianity — keeps  them  before 
the  eye,  as  it  were,  in  a  solemn,  religious  tab- 
leau— and  then  I  habitually  refuse  do  what  he 
has  commanded,  and,  instead  of  doing  that,  do 


152  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

something  else  that  he  has  not  commanded,  and 
do  it,  too,  in  his  name,  how  can  I  deny  that  I 
am  habitually  disobeying  him  ? 

"I  know  full  well  the  plea  that  these  men 
urge  in  defense  of  their  strange  conduct — '  that 
sprinkling  will  do  just  as  well;'  but  how  do  they 
know  it  will  do  just  as  well?  His  own  plain 
command  is  a  sure  proof  that  Jesus  did  not 
think  that  sprinkling  would  do  as  well  as  immer- 
sion. In  his  judgment,  immersion  is  best — is 
necessary  to  the  end  he  has  in  view — or  he  would 
not  require  it.  Did  not  he  know  all  about  the 
greater  convenience  of  sprinkling?  Did  not  he 
know  all  about  the  rigors  of  a  northern  winter, 
and  how  necessary  it  would  often  be  to  cut  the 
ice  in  order  to  immerse?  Did  not  he  know  as 
much  about  the  liability  of  ladies'  clothing  to 
float  on  the  water  as  do  the  men  of  this  genera- 
tion, who  so  shamelessly  urge  it  as  an  element 
of  indecency? 

"If  he  did  not,  then  who  is  he  more  than  an- 
other man?  But  if  he  did,  then  who  are  these 
'great  and  good  men'  that  sit  in  judgment  on 
his  command,  and  dare  to  condemn  it  as  imprac- 
ticable, or  unwise,  or  in  bad  taste?  Who  are 
these  doctors  who  presume  to  tell  us  that  sprink- 
ling, which  Christ  did  not  command,  will  do  as 
well  as   immersion,  which   he   did   command? 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  I$$ 

Whence  did  they  gain  this  wisdom,  that  they  may 
correct  the  judgment  of  the  Lord?  By  what 
authority  do  they  set  aside  the  authority  of  the 
Christ,  and  tell  us  that  obedience  to  his  command 
is  a  matter  of  indifferency  f 

"Why,  indifferency  to  the  command  of  an 
earthly  king  would  justly  be  regarded  as  crim- 
inal— a  fault  to  be  swiftly  and  severely  punished 
— and  we  are  coolly  told  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
indifferency  whether  we  obey  Christ. 

"Who are  these  daring  counselors,  these  bold 
innovators?  'Great  men,'  you  say;  wise  men, 
educated  men,  good  men — but  men.  However 
great,  however  wise,  however  educated,  how- 
ever good ;  they  are,  after  all,  men — only  men. 

"Then  these  men — themselves  being  judges 
— ask  us  to  choose  between  men  and  Christ. 
They  set  the  Word  of  Christ  before  us;  they 
make  it  so  plain  that  no  room  is  left  for  doubt 
about  what  he  requires,  and  then  they  modestly 
tell  us  in  words,  or  by  their  own  action,  that 
they  know  a  better  way.  And  that  brings  us 
face  to  face  with  this  simple  yet  awful  prob- 
lem :  Which  will  we  follow — Christ  or  these  great 
men?  Christ  or  these  wise  men?  Christ  or 
these  learned  men  ?  Christ  or  these  good  men  ? 
Christ  or  men  ?  This  is  the  whole  matter  in  a 
nutshell.    Under  which  banner — Christ  or  men? 


154  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

Choose  ye  this  day.  If  you  are  Christ's,  march 
under  his  banner,  obey  his  command,  submit  to 
his  judgment,  keep  his  word,  and  be  immersed 
simply  because  he  commands  it.  But  if  you  be- 
long to  these  men,  obey  them — decide,  if  you 
dare,  that  obedience  to  Christ  in  the  solemn  act 
of  confession  of  discipleship  is  a  matter  of  in- 
differency,  and  please  your  own  fancy.  But  be 
not  astonished  when  you  hear  the  sorrowful  voice 
of  your  dishonored  Lord  asking  of  you  that  most 
uncomfortable  question:  'Why  call  ye  me  Lord, 
Lord,  and  do  not  the  things  that  I  say  ? ' 

"I  do  not  know,  my  brother,  what  you  may 
think  of  this  matter ;  but  as  for  me,  I  prefer  to 
follow  Christ  in  this  as  in  everything  else,  and 
that  is  the  reason  I  became  a  Baptist.  These 
men  testify  truly  that  the  original  baptism — the 
baptism  which  our  Lord  instituted,  which  he 
himself  received  in  his  own  sacred  person,  and 
which  he  commanded  us  to  receive  and  to  prac- 
tice—  is  an  immersion  of  the  body  in  water. 
This  testimony  is  extorted  from  them  by  the 
force  of  resistless  evidence — against  all  their  de- 
nominational and  churchly  interests,  and  against 
their  own  evident  personal  tastes  and  preferences ; 
and  it  is  true,  as  a  rigid,  impartial  examination 
never  fails  to  demonstrate. 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  155 

"And,  my  brother,  every  Christian  man  is  shut 
up  to  this  alternative — to  obey  Christ  by  being 
immersed,  or  to  disobey  him  by  accepting  some- 
thing else  on  the  strange  and  daring  plea  that  '  it 
will  do  just  as  well.'" 

In  a  short  time  my  reverend  friend  took  his 
departure,  a  sad  and  thoughtful  man. 

Through  a  painful  mistake  he  had  made  a  very 
painful  discovery — that  there  are  professedly 
Christian  men  who  concede  that  Christ  does  re- 
quire immersion,  and  who  still  persist  in  the  prac- 
tice of  sprinkling. 

I  do  not  wonder  that  he  was  surprised  and 
grieved,  and  that  he  asked  with  such  emphasis: 
"How  can  a  man  write  as  this  man  does,  and 
still  continue  to  practice  sprinkling?  "  And  yet 
the  state  of  mind  which  enables  men  to  do  that 
is  the  sole  defense  of  sprinkling  and  of  infant 
baptism  to-day.  Let  conscience  assert  itself  in 
this  matter,  and  put  Christ  on  the  throne — mak- 
ing his  Word  the  word  of  a  king  in  reality,  a 
word  to  be  heard  reverently,  and  to  be  obeyed 
implicitly — and  immersion  instantly  assumes  its 
proper  dignity  as  a  gospel  ordinance. 

I  said  "conscience"  advisedly;  for  it  is  the 
lack  of  conscience,  in  respect  to  this  one  matter, 
that  keeps  the  practice  of  sprinkling  afloat.    Men 


156  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

do  not  intend  to  be  disloyal  to  Christ  in  this 
thing ;  but  they  have  drifted  into  a  dangerous 
state,  on  the  current  of  indififerency,  lulled  into 
false  security  by  the  force  of  great  names,  and 
the  soothing  murmur  of  a  general  assent.  They 
fondly  fancy  the  Master  does  not  care,  because 
he  keeps  silent,  and  utters  no  word  of  protest. 
If  you  chide  them,  they  say,  ' '  Oh,  it  is  only  a 
form,"  forgetting  that  back  of  the  form  is  the 
solemn  command  of  our  Lord  enjoining  it. 
Only  a  form,  but  a  divinely-chosen  form  —  a 
form  enforced  by  the  authority  of  Christ  him- 
self. When  a  Christian  man  is  fully  awake  to 
this  fact,  he- can  not  be  satisfied  with  some  other 
form  than  the  one  having  divine  approval. 

It  is  idle  to  talk  of  it  as  "a  mere  question  of 
water;"  nay,  worse,  it  is  wicked  to  do  so,  be- 
cause such  pretensions  raise  a  false  issue  and  ob- 
scure the  truth.  It  is  a  question  of  the  kingly 
authority  of  Christ.  It  is  a  question  of  the  su- 
premacy of  his  law.  There  stands  the  law,  plain, 
definite,  explicit,  positive,  in  full  force.  Only 
the  same  authority  that  enacted  it  can  repeal  it 
or  in  any  way  modify  it,  and  that  authority  is 
silent  respecting  its  repeal.  The  sacred  lips  that 
uttered  the  law  of  baptism  have  never,  in  any 
way,  intimated  even  the  slightest  modification 


BEHIND    THE   SCENES.  157 

of  it.  How  can  a  man  ignore  or  disobey  that 
law,  and  have  a  good  conscience  toward  God? 
"Brethren,  if  our  heart  condemn  us,  God  is 
greater  than  our  heart,  and  knoweth  all  things." 


/^ 


158  BEHIND   THE    SCENES. 


NUMBER  XII. 


' '  W/iat  can  you  plead  in  behalf  of  your  dear  chil- 
dren? You  have  rejected  infant  baptism, 
and  with  it  the  Coveiiant  of  Circumcision  made 
with  Abraham.  What  is  there  left  ?  What 
can  you  now  plead  in  behalf  of  your  dear 
children  f 

"  Your  question  is  a  fair  one.  T  have  indeed  re- 
jected infant  baptism,  and  as  for  circum- 
cision, I  have  nothing  to  do  ivith  it.  I  am 
7iot  a  Jew,  nor  have  I  the  least  desire  to  be 
one.  And  yet  I  have  one  plea  to  urge  in  be- 
half of  my  dear  childreti.  It  is  a  short, 
simple  plea,  yet  one  of  infinite  value.  I  can 
and  I  do  plead  in  their  behalf  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  I  woidd  not  give  up  this  plea  for 
tens  of  thousands  of  Abrahams,  and  uncoutited 
Covenants  of  Circumcision.  I  am  satisfied 
with  it." 

Some  time  after  I  had  publicly  renounced 
infant  baptism  and  sprinkling,  I  received  a  letter 
from  the  wife  of  my  former  pastor.  A  descend- 
ant of  the  old  Puritan  stock,  she  was  a  lady  of 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  1 59 

culture  and  refinement.  A  Christian  of  deep, 
fervent  pi*--./,  she  was  also  a  zealous  pedobap- 
tist.  With  her,  infant  baptism  was  a  very  sacred 
and  blessed  institution,  dating  back  to  Abraham. 
In  some  way,  to  me  unaccountable,  she  had  come 
to  associate  it  inseparably  with  the  covenants  of 
circumcision  and  of  grace.  It  seemed  to  be 
with  her  a  matter  of  early  training  and  of 
reverent  feeling,  almost  entirely.  I  do  not 
think  she  ever  examined  it  as  a  question  of  truth. 
I  am  confident  she  regarded  it  as  a  matter  to  be 
received  and  held  by  faith  alone,  and  that  she 
looked  upon  the  intrusion  of  doubt  respecting  it 
as  a  visitation  of  the  evil  one,  to  be  instantly, 
firmly  and  perpetually  resisted  and  rejected,  not 
by  investigation  and  argument,  but  by  prayer 
and  a  new  resolution  of  faith  and  trust.  An 
amusing  incident  in  her  quiet,  earnest  life  will 
illustrate  the  great  predominance  of  feeling  over 
judgment  in  determining  her  conduct. 

She  was  visiting  a  dear  friend  in  a  distant  city, 
and  while  there  (her  friend  being  a  member  of 
the  "Disciples"  Church),  much  was  said  to  her 
about  the  importance  of  submitting  to  baptism. 
Of  course,  she  had  been  sprinkled  in  infancy, 
and  she  insisted  firmly  for  a  time  that  she  was 
all  right,  while  her  friend  assured  her  that  she 


l60  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

was   really    unbaptized,    and   therefore    (in   his 
opinion)  unsaved.      At  length  he  said  to  her: 

' '  You  have  long  striven  to  follow  the  Savior, 
and  to  attain  to  eternal  life.  You  have  done 
many  noble,  Christly  things — but  you  have  not 
been  baptized.  You  say  it  is  not  necessary  in 
order  to  be  saved.  Perhaps  you  are  right,  but 
I  think  you  are  wrong.  Now  suppose  you  go 
on  in  this  way  until  you  come  to  the  judgment, 
and  then  find  that,  after  all,  I  am  right,  and  that 
your  sins  are  not  forgiven ;  in  a  word,  that  you 
are  lost.  Would  not  a  discovery  of  the  fact,  at 
that  awful  hour,  be  insupportable  ? 

"Is  it  not  vastly  better  to  be  on  the  safe  side? 
Remember  that,  if  I  am  wrong,  I  am  still  safe ; 
but  if  you  are  wrong,  you  are  lost." 

She  made  no  reply;  but  a  few  days  after, 
hearing  that  there  were  to  be  several  baptisms 
in  the  "Disciples"  Church  in  the  evening,  she 
timidly  inquired  of  her  friend  whether  his  pastor 
would  baptize  her,  with  the  understanding  that 
she  should  continue  a  member  of  the  Congrega- 
tional Church.  Her  friend  replied  in  the  affirm- 
ative, and  then  inquired  whether  she  had  changed 
her  views. 

"No,"  she  replied,  "  I  have  not ;  but  I  have 
been  thinking  about  what  you  said  some  days 
since  about  being  on  the  right  side.     There  is 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  l6l 

much  in  that,  and  I  have  resolved  to  run  no 
needless  risk ;  and  therefore  I  desire  to  be  duly 
immersed,  and  then  I  shall  feel  that  I  am  certainly 
safe." 

And  immersed  she  was—  though  whether  she 
went  on  her  way  any  more  joyously  on  that 
account,  I  can  not  say. 

Of  course  my  renunciation  of  pedobaptism 
was  a  matter  of  great  mystery  and  great  pain  to 
her.  She  was  a  very  warm,  earnest.  Christian 
friend,  and  she  had  reposed  great  confidence  in 
me.  When  I  announced  my  change  of  views,  it 
was  a  great  shock  to  her,  although  she  had  known 
for  weeks  that  it  was  coming. 

She  could  not  easily  become  reconciled  to  it. 
After  a  time  she  wrote  me  a  letter,  very  kind 
and  very  pathetic.  In  it  she  spoke  freely  of  her 
great  sorrow  at  the  step  I  had  taken  ;  yet  with 
the  sincerest  expressions  of  friendship  and 
Christian  affection. 

She  seemed  to  regard  me  as  honest,  but  greatly 
deluded — as  a  wrong-doer,  but  not  willfully  so. 
In  her  view,  I  was  rather  the  victim  of  mis- 
fortune than  the  blameworthy  rejecter  of  divine 
truth.  Her  Christian  charity  did  great  honor 
to  her  heart,  while  her  utter  failure  to  grasp  the 
great  questions  at  issue,  and  to  weigh  fairly  the 
reasons  of  my  action,  was  not  at  all  creditable  to 
II 


l62  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

her  head.  And  yet  it  was  not  the  question  of 
any  lack  of  mental  power,  or  of  mental  discipline, 
but  of  a  vicious  training  which  taught  her  to 
refer  all  questions  touching  religion  to  the  heart 
rather  than  to  the  head ;  thus  giving  up  to  the 
guidance  of  blind  feeling,  in  matters  calling 
urgently  for  the  undimmed  gaze  of  the  "eye  of 
the  mind  " — the  very  mistake  which,  to-day, 
makes  so  many  good  men  * '  blind  leaders  of  the 
blind." 

Referring  to  the  fact  that  my  children  had 
been  baptized  in  infancy,  and  that  they  were  yet 
very  young,  she  wrote : 

' '  What  can  you  plead  in  behalf  of  your  dear 
children?  You  have  rejected  infant  baptism, 
and  with  it  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  made 
with  Abraham.  What  is  there  left  ?  What  can 
you  now  plead  in  behalf  of  your  dear  children  ?  " 

It  really  seemed  as  if  she  thought  the  salvation 
of  my  children  depended  on  the  Covenant  of 
Circumcision  ;  that  in  some  inscrutable  way 
their  baptism  had  made  them  heirs  of  all  its 
benefits,  and  that  among  those  benefits  the  chief 
and  crowning  one  is  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  In 
having  them  baptized,  I,  as  their  natural  guardian . 
had  really  done  no  less  than  to  place  God  under 
a  solemn  covenant  obligation  to  save  them ;  but 
alas!    in  renouncing  infant  baptism,  I  had   re- 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  163 

leased  him  from  that  covenant  obHgation.  Hav- 
ing rejected  infant  baptism  before  my  children 
were  actually  saved,  I  had  forfeited  all  its  benefits 
for  them,  and  put  them  again  outside  the  pale 
of  the  "covenanted  mercies  "  of  God.  And  if 
infant  baptism  is  not  a  lie,  and  a  cheat,  she  was 
right. 

If  there  is  any  defense  for  it  in  the  Word  of 
God,  that  defense  is  in  the  plea  of  circumcision. 
Plainly  there  is  no  command,  nor  precept,  nor 
example,  in  the  Scriptures,  enjoining  or  justify- 
ing it.  The  command  to  baptize  is  limited  by 
the  context  to  such  as  believe,  as  nearly  all  pcdo- 
baptists  admit.  Every  precept,  or  principle,  or 
illustration,  in  the  divine  Word,  in  any  way 
touching  baptism,  relates,  evidently,  to  the  bap- 
tism of  believers,  and  to  such  baptism  only. 
And  every  example  of  baptism  relates  to  the 
same  class,  and  to  them  alone.  The  cases  of 
household  baptism  are  no  exception  to  this  state- 
ment, and  furnish  no  preten.se  for  the  baptism  of 
infants,  since  it  is  simply  impossible  to  prove  the 
existence  of  even  one  infant  in  any  of  those 
households,  and  in  most  of  them  the  context 
makes  it  certain  that  all  received  instruction,  be- 
lieved in  Christ,  and  rejoiced  in  him — things 
which  infants  are  not  in  the  habit  of  doing. 

Glance  at  the  cases  of  household  baptism  in 


164  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

detail.  We  have  no  hint,  not  the  slightest,  that 
Lydia  had  either  husband  or  children.  The  fact 
that  she  was  a  merchant,  away  from  her  own 
home  (Acts  xvi.  14,  15),  renders  it  morally 
certain  that  she  was  unmarried,  and  the  record 
of  her  conduct  proves  that  she  was  a  respectable, 
virtuous  lady.  Taking  into  consideration  the. 
known  circumstances  of  her  case,  it  is  positively 
cruel  to  pretend  there  were  infants  in  her  family. 
If  we  were  to  assume  as  much  about  any  respect- 
able lady  now  living,  we  would  call  down  upon 
us  a  speedy  and  very  just  prosecution  for  defa- 
mation of  character.  Dear  old  Sister  Lydia  can 
not  defend  herself  in  that  way ;  but  she  is  fairly 
entitled  to  better  treatment  at  the  hands  of 
professed  Christians,  and  I  beg  our  pedobaptist 
friends,  in  the  interest  of  Christian  morals  and 
decency,  if  for  no  other  reason,  to  let  her  alone. 
The  members  of  her  household  are  called 
brethren  (Acts  xvi,  40);  but  sprinkled  babes 
are  hardly  brethren,  those  who  sprinkle  them 
being  judges.  Besides  this,  Paul  and  Silas 
"comforted  "  them  (Acts  xvi,  40).  Were  those 
noble  missionary  ministers  itinerant  baby-tenders? 
Did  they  talk  baby-talk  to  one  or  more  of  those 
"brethren?"  If  I  seem  to  talk  foolishness,  re- 
member that  I  am  replying  to  an  unfounded 
foolish  pretense,  one   that   sensible  and  pious 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  I65 

people  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  set  up  in  defense 
of  anything. 

The  jailer's  household  were  not  only  baptized, 
all  of  them  (Acts  xvi.  33),  but  they  were  also 
taught,  all  of  them,  before  baptism  (Acts  xvi. 
32),  and  they  all  believed  in  God,  all  of  them 
(Acts  xvi.  34).  To  that  sort  of  infant  baptism 
Baptists  will  be  the  very  last  persons  to  object. 

The  household  of  Crispus  were  baptized  by 
Paul  (i  Cor.  i.  14),  but  they  were  all  believers 
(Acts  xviii.  8).  The  household  of  Stephanas, 
which  Paul  also  baptized  (i  Cor.  i.  16),  were 
certainly  believers,  since  they  all  became  min- 
isters directly  afterward,  and  were  so  worthy  of 
confidence  that  Paul  directs  the  brethren  at 
Corinth  to  submit  themselves  unto  them — i.  e., 
to  receive  their  instructions  (i  Cor.  xvi.  15,  16). 

The  household  of  Gains  may  possibly  have 
been  baptized  by  the  apostle,  but  as  there  is  not 
the  slightest  evidence  that  they  were,  nor  that 
Gains  had  any  household  of  any  sort  whatever, 
it  would  seem  hardly  safe  to  assume  that  he  had 
a  household,  and  in  the  household  a  babe,  and 
that  Paul  baptized  that  babe,  in  order  to  find 
some  shadow  of  excuse  for  infant  baptism. 

This  whole  matter  of  household  baptisms 
does  not  afford  even  an  honest  pretext  for  in- 
fant baptism. 


l66  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

1.  The  presence  of  an  infant  is  not  necessary 
to  the  existence  of  a  household.  In  my  own 
congregation,  at  this  moment,  there  are  more 
than  thirty  well-regulated  households  without  so 
much  as  one  infant  in  any  of  them.  And  this 
word  household  is  just  as  properly  applied  to 
these  families  that  are  destitute  of  babes,  as  .to 
any  others ;  and  so  it  was  ancient!)'.  Therefore, 
the  word  household  of  itself  proves  just  nothing 
at  all. 

2.  In  every  case  of  household  baptism  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament,  there  is  conclusive 
proof  that  the  entire  household  were  believers. 
These  household  baptisms,  honestly  studied, 
justify,  not  infant  baptism,  but  the  baptism  of 
believers  only.     They  are  Baptist  ammunition. 

Nor  can  infant  baptism  be  justified  by  the 
incident  in  the  life  of  our  Lord,  recorded  in 
Matt.  xix.  13-15,  Mark  x.  13-16,  and  Luke 
xviii.  15-17,  commonly  described  as  Jesus  bless- 
ing the  little  children.  For  Jesus  did  not  bap- 
tize them,  nor  even  hint  that  they  ought  to  be 
baptized.  His  silence  at  such  a  lime  is  conclusive 
proof  that  he  does  not  desire  their  baptism.  The 
passage  shows  beyond  a  doubt  that  Jesus  is  not 
a  pedobaptist.  It  is  the  one  grand  incident  in 
his  life  in  which  he  is  called  to  deal  directly  with 
little  children  as  a  class,     Hq  notice?  them,  fq- 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  167 

ceives  them,  puts  his  hands  on  them,  takes  them 
up  in  his  arms  and  blesses  them,  but  does  not 
utter  one  word  about  baptizing  them  ;  therefore, 
he  did  not  intend  they  should  be  baptized. 

This  touching  incident  gives  no  countenance 
to  infant  baptism.  It  is  also  Baptist  ammunition 
of  the  most  effective  sort,  since  it  shows  that 
Baptists,  in  neglecting  the  baptism  of  infants, 
are  only  following  the  undeniable  example  of 
our  Lord. 

There  remains  only  one  possibility  of  vindicat- 
ing infant  baptism  from  the  Scriptures.  If  the 
Covenant  of  Circumcision  is  still  in  force,  and  if 
the  form  of  the  rite  has  been  changed  by  divine 
direction  into  baptism ;  then  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, under  certain  conditions,  is  an  imperative 
duty.  Is  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  still  in 
force  ?  and  has  the  form  of  the  rite  been  changed 
by  divine  direction  into  baptism  ?  Suppose  we 
look  into  this  matter. 

The  Covenant  of  Circumcision  was  given  to 
Abraham,  and  is  recorded  in  Genesis,  chapter 
XVII.     It  is  in  these  words : 

"I.  And  when  Abram  was  ninety  years  old 
and  nine,  the  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and 
said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Almighty  God :  walk 
before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect. 

"2.  And  I  will  make  my  covenant  between 


1 68  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly. 

"3.  And  Abram  fell  on  his  face:  and  God 
talked  with  him,  saying, 

'  '4.  As  for  me,  behold,  my  covenant  is  with 
thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations. 

"5,  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be 
called  Abram ;  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham : 
for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee. 

"6.  And  I  will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful, 
and  I  will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall 
come  out  of  thee. 

"7.  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between 
me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a 
God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. 

"8.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a 
stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlast- 
ing possession ;  and  I  will  be  their  God. 

"9,  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  Thou  shalt 
keep  my  covenant  therefore,  thou,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee,  in  their  generations. 

"10.  This  t's  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall 
keep  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee.  Every  man-child  among  you  shall  be  cir- 
cumcised. 

"J  i»  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  I69 

foreskin ;  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant 
betwixt  me  and  you. 

"12.  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be 
circumcised  among  you,  every  man-child  in  your 
generations ;  he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  or 
bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not 
of  thy  seed. 

"13.  He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he 
that  is  bought  with  thy  money,  must  needs  be 
circumcised ;  and  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your 
flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant. 

"14.  And  the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose 
flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul 
shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people  ;  he  hath  broken 
my  covenant." 

In  the  last  five  verses  we  have  Abraham's  idea 
of  his  part  of  this  covenant  in  his  method  of 
applying  it: 

"23.  And  Abraham  took  Ishmael  his  son,  and 
all  that  were  born  in  his  house,  and  all  that  were 
bought  with  his  money,  every  male  among  the 
men  of  Abraham's  house,  and  circumcised  the 
flesh  of  their  foreskin,  in  the  selfsame  day,  as 
God  had  said  unto  him. 

"24.  And  Abraham  was  ninety  years  old  and 
nine,  when  he  was  circumcised  in  the  flesh  of 
his  foreskin. 

"25.   And  Ishm?iel  hi?  son  was  thirteen  years 


I/O  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

old  when  he  was  circumcised  in  the  flesh  of  his 
foreskin. 

"26.  In  the  selfsame  day  was  Abraham  cir- 
cumcised, and  Jshmael  his  son ; 

"27.  And  all  the  men  of  his  house,  born  in 
the  house,  and  bought  with  money  of  the  stranger, 
were  circumcised  with  him," 

Is  this  Covenant  of  Circumcision  still  in  force  ? 
This  is  not  a  new  question.  It  arose  at  Antioch 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  troubled  the 
brethren  there  greatly.  For  certain  men  went 
there  from  J  udea,  and  taught  the  people:  "Except 
ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye 
can  not  be  saved."  Paul  and  Barnabas  contra- 
dicted them,  but  they  insisted  upon  it,  and  the 
church  was  in  a  great  commotion  about  it.  At 
last,  to  set  the  matter  at  rest,  they  sent  a  com- 
mittee, headed  by  Paul  and  Barnabas,  to  Jeru- 
salem, to  consult  the  apostles  and  elders  about 
it.  After  a  very  earnest  consultation,  the  apostles 
and  elders  decided  unanimously  that  circumcision 
was  not  necessary,  and  they  sent  chosen  men, 
Judas  and  Silas,  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  to  tell 
the  brethren  at  Antioch,  in  substance,  that  they 
need  not  be  circumcised.  Read  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  Acts,  and  you  will  see  that  this  finst 
great  Council  of  the  Church,  under  the  direction 
and  by  the  advice  of  the  inspired  apostles,  set 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  I7I 

aside  circumcision  as  a  matter  not  binding  on 
the  Church  of  Christ. 

It  is  true,  they  expressed  themselves  very 
cautiously,  for  they  were  in  great  danger  of  ex- 
citing a  deadly  persecution  against  themselves, 
surrounded  as  they  were  by  zealous  Jews ;  but 
their  letter  to  the  church  at  Antioch  is  sufficiently 
explicit. 

The  refusal  to  enforce  circumcision  upon  the 
church  at  Antioch  was  a  deliberate,  intentional 
notice  to  them,  and  to  Christians  everywhere, 
that  it  is  not  an  institution  of  Christianity.  I 
affirm,  therefore,  by  the  authority  of  the  apostles 
of  our  Lord,  that  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision 
is  not  in  force  among  Christians. 

Paul,  in  his  letter  to  the  Galatians,  denounces 
circumcision  as  opposed  to  the  gospel.  (Gal. 
V.  2.)  "Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that,  if 
ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you 
nothing."  And  in  the  eleventh  verse  of  the 
same  chapter  he  says:  "And  I,  brethren,  if  I 
yet  preach  circumcision,  why  do  I  yet  suffer  per- 
secution? then  is  the  offense  of  the  cross  ceased." 

If  circumcision  is  still  in  force,  why  did  not 
Paul  preach  it  ?  If  it  is  a  part  of  Christianity, 
why  did  he  say,  "If  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ 
shall  profit  you  nothing?"     If  circumcision  is 


172  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

Still  in  force,  then  Paul  did  not  know  it,  or  he  is 
a  deceiver. 

But  it  is  said  the  form  of  circumcision  is 
changed  to  baptism.  But  if  this  be  true,  why 
did  not  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  tell  the  brethren 
at  Antioch  that  they  were  already  circumcised 
by  baptism  ?  If  it  be  true,  why  did  not  Paul  tell 
the  brethren  of  Galatia  that  they  were  already 
circumcised  by  baptism  ?  If  it  be  true,  why  were 
any  baptized  who  had  been  circumcised? 

If  it  be  true,  then  all  who  are  baptized  are 
thereby  circumcised,  and  Christ  profits  them 
nothing,  since  Paul  says  (Gal.  v.  2),  "If  ye  be 
circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing." 
If  it  be  true,  then  all  baptized  persons,  being 
thereby  circumcised,  are  bound  to  do  the  whole 
law,  Paul  being  judge,  for  he  says  (Gal.  v.  3), 
"For  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circum- 
cised, that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law." 
If  it  be  true  then,  every  baptized  person,  being 
thereby  circumcised,  is  fallen  into  endless  troubles 
and  contradictions. 

For,  being  circumcised,  he  has  become  a  Jew, 
and  as  such  he  is  an  heir  with  them  of  the 
earthly  Canaan,  and  he  is  subject,  with  them,  to 
all  the  laws  and  ordinances  of  the  Theocracy. 
Having  become  a  circumcised  man  by  baptism, 
jn  the  very  act  by  which  he  intended,  solemnly 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  IJS 

and  publicly,  to  "put  on  Christ,"  and  avow 
himself  a  Christian,  he  has  unwittingly  "put  on 
Moses" — and  henceforth  Christ  avails  him  noth- 
ing ;  while,  in  addition  to  his  own  crushing  burden 
of  personal  guilt,  as  a  wretched  sinner,  he  comes 
in  for  his  share  of  the  curse  resting  upon  the 
Jews  for  their  rejection  of  our  Lord.  At  the 
same  time,  being  by  his  circumcision  "a  debtor 
to  do  the  whole  law  "  (Gal.  v.  3),  he  has  no  other 
way  of  justification  open  to  him  than  by  the  law, 
and  he  is,  therefore,  fallen  from  grace.  (Gal.  v. 
4).  But  by  the  law  salvation  is  impossible,  for 
"  By  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  in  his  sight :  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowl- 
edge of  sin."     (Rom.  iii.  20). 

Absurd?  Yes — but  the  legitimate  and  in- 
evitable result  of  this  absurd  notion  that  circum- 
cision is  still  in  force  in  the  form  of  baptism. 

No,  circumcision  is  not  in  force.  Christ 
abolished  it:  "Blotting  out  the  handwriting  of 
ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  con- 
trary to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing 
it  to  his  cross. "  (Col.  ii.  14.  )  And  the  Council 
at  Jerusalem  quietly  dropped  it  as  a  thing  no 
longer  binding — an  action  the  more  significant 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  advocated  by  such 
inspired  Jews  as  Paul  and  Peter  and  James,  and 


174  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

was  approved  by  all  the  apostles  and  elders,  the 
most  of  whom  were  certainly  Jews. 

And  Paul,  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles, 
did  not  preach  it,  but  constantly  warned  the 
Christian  brethren  to  let  it  alone — telling  them, 
in  effect,  that  they  could  not  have  both  Christ 
and  circumcision  ;  that  if  they  were  circumcised 
they  would  thereby  forfeit  Christ,  and  henceforth 
he  would  profit  them  nothing.  And  yet,  in  the 
vain  hope  of  justifying  infant  baptism,  men  claim- 
ing to  be  Christians  tell  us  that,  after  all,  cir- 
cumcision is  not  nailed  to  the  cross ;  is  not 
opposed  to  Christ ;  is  not  abolished,  but  is  still 
in  full  force,  in  the  form  of  baptism.  When 
asked  to  name  the  chapter  and  verse  wherein 
this  change  of  form  is  authorized,  they  are  silent. 
When  called  upon  to  vindicate  the  conduct  of 
the  apostles  and  elders  in  the  Council  of  Jeru- 
salem, they  are  dumb.  When  requested  to 
explain  how  it  is  that  Paul — who,  according  to 
their  statements,  was  all  the  time  preaching,  and, 
at  least  sometimes,  practicing  circumcision- 
could  honestly  denounce  circumcision,  and  affirm 
defiantly  that  he  did  not  preach  it,  they  are 
speechless. 

When  we  inquire  how  it  happened  that  the 
existence  of  circumcision,  under  the  form  of 
baptism,  escaped  the  notice  of  the  entire  Christian 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  -      175 

world  until  so  recently,  they  ought  to  blush  with 
modest  worth,  but  they  suddenly  become  wonder- 
fully deaf,  and  of  course  attempt  no  reply. 

The  truth  is,  this  whole  pretended  argument 
for  infant  baptism  from  circumcision  is  an  after- 
thought— a  contrivance  cooked  up  to  meet  a 
desperate  emergency.  Its  weakness  is  exceeded 
only  by  its  audacity,  unscripturalness  and  endless 
inconsistencies.  Its  existence  is  a  reflection  on 
the  piety  of  modern  times,  while  the  fact  that 
any  considerable  number  of  men  continue  to 
employ  it  as  a  defense  of  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism  is  a  severe  impeachment  of  the  intelli- 
gence of  Christendom  in  this  progressive  age. 

Circumcision  was  a  strictly  Jewish  rite.  It 
began  with  Abraham  and  ended  with  Moses. 
It  did  not  begin  with  the  Dispensation  of  Prom- 
ise. It  was  injected  into  that  dispensation  at  a 
certain  time,  as  a  surety  and  means  of  the  ful- 
fillment of  those  temporal  promises  which  were 
to  prepare  the  way  for  Christ. 

There  was  no  Christ  in  circumcision,  but  it 
was  designed  and  fitted  to  become  the  bond  of 
a  new  national  life,  through  which  in  due  time 
he  might  appear.  Abraham  saw  in  it  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fulfillment  of  the  long-deferred  prom- 
ises of  future  temporal  greatness.  It  was  to  him 
an  explicit,  visible  pledge  of  a  numerous  and 


176  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

powerful  posterity,  and  for  this  reason  it  was  to 
him  a  seal,  or  confirmation,  of  the  faith  and  con- 
fidence in  the  promises  of  God  which  he  had 
cherished  so  long  and  so  patiently.  This  was 
its  only  connection  with  faith.  Abraham  saw  in 
it  an  earnest  of  the  realization  of  his  long-de- 
ferred hope  and  trust.  It  was,  therefore,  to  him 
a  seal  of  his  faith ;  but  he  received  it,  not  be- 
cause he  was  a  saint,  but  because  he  was  to  be- 
come the  Father  of  many  nations,  and  especial- 
ly of  that  particular  nation  through  whom  the 
Messiah  should  come.  And  his  sons  and  his 
slaves  and  the  sons  of  his  slaves  received  it,  not 
because  they  had  faith,  or  were  by  and  by  to 
have  it,  but  solely  because  they  were  his  sons, 
or  his  slaves,  or  the  sons  of  his  sons,  or  the  sons 
of  his  slaves,  and,  therefore,  citizens  of  that  new 
nation  of  which  God  had  constituted  him  the 
founder  and  the  head.  They  were  entitled  to 
it,  not  by  faith,  present  or  prospective,  but  by 
natural  birth  in  the  nation,  in  which  it  was  the 
badge  of  citizenship.  As  a  Jewish  rite,  it  had 
its  uses  as  a  pledge  or  token  of  certain  great 
temporal  rights  and  privileges;  but  when  Juda- 
ism gave  place  to  Christianity,  it  was  abolished 
along  with  the  nationality  of  which  it  was  the 
bond  and  the  badge,  and  the  Covenant  of  Works, 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  I// 

of  which  it  had  also  become  the  recognized 
bond. 

Some,  indeed,  imagine  that  it  still  survives 
under  the  form  of  baptism.  But  if  so,  it  has 
undergone  a  most  complete  and  wonderful  trans- 
formation— such  a  transformation  as  utterly  de- 
stroys its  identity,  and  converts  it  into  a  some- 
thing in  every  way  unlike  its  own  former  self, 
and  in  everything  fatally  opposed  to  it. 

As  to  outward  form,  what  can  be  more  unlike 
than  circumcision  and  baptism — the  one  a  bloody 
cutting,  the  other  a  bloodless  bathing  ? 

As  a  religious  type  or  symbol,  while  it  is  not 
opposed  in  signification  to  baptism,  it  is  almost 
immeasurably  inferior  to  it. 

It  symbolizes  a  putting  off  the  sins  of  the  flesh 
— a  circumcision  of  the  heart — but  it  does  not 
even  hint  of  the  means  of  that  circumcision,  nor 
does  it  intimate  the  completeness  of  it.  It  in- 
dicates a  lopping  off  of  old  evils — a  partial  re- 
form in  life — but  it  gives  no  promise  of  a  new 
life,  a  divine  life,  charged  to  overflowing  with 
good. 

But  not  so  baptism.  That  tells  in  its  very 
form,  not  only  of  a  cleansing,  but  of  a  change 
radical  as  death,  and  vitalizing  as  the  resurrec- 
tion. It  symbolizes,  not  a  mere  lopping  off"  of 
rotten  limbs,  but  a  dying  to  the  old  life  of  sin 

12 


178  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

and  a  rising  into  a  new  life  of  holiness  ;  and  all 
this  through  the  death  and  resurrection  of  our 
Lord.  The  one  voices  the  demand  of  the  law, 
the  other  describes,  in  eloquent  action,  the  amaz- 
ing victory  of  the  Cross.  The  one  is  a  * '  yoke 
of  bondage,"  making  those  who  receive  it  debt- 
ors to  do  the  whole  law ;  the  other  is  a  badge 
of  liberty  and  life,  assuring  all  observers  that  all 
who  rightly  receive  it  have  passed  from  the  bond- 
age and  death  of  law  into  the  freedom  and  light 
and  life  of  the  gospel. 

The  one  is  the  badge  of  citizenship  in  a  tem- 
poral kingdom,  and  attests  only  a  natural  birth 
into  a  certain  temporal  nationality ;  the  other  is 
the  badge  of  citizenship  in  a  spiritual  kingdom, 
and  attests  a  spiritual  birth  into  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

The  one  belongs  to  the  Covenant  of  Law, 
which  says,  "This  do  and  live;"  the  other  be- 
longs to  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  which  says, 
"Believe  and  live." 

The  one  is  the  natural  birthright  of  all  the 
male  children  of  a  certain  nation,  and  of  all  their 
male  servants  and  proselytes,  no  matter  what 
their  moral  character;  the  other  is  the  spiritual 
birthright  of  such,  and  only  such,  as  are  born 
of  God,  male  or  female. 

The  one  is  the  token  and  badge  of  the  Juda- 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  1 79 

ism  whose  letter  killeth ;  the  other  is  the  token 
and  badge  of  that  Christianity  whose  spirit  giv- 
eth  life. 

In  a  word,  circumcision  and  baptism  are  as 
unlike  in  all  respects  as  law  and  grace,  as  Moses 
and  Christ,  as  Sinai  and  the  Cross,  as  bondage 
and  liberty,  as  death  and  life.  They  are  not, 
they  can  not  be,  one  and  the  same. 

Baptism  is  not  circumcision  in  disguise,  but 
the  new,  divine,  gospel  rite,  ordained  by  infinite 
wisdom  as  a  perpetual  and  complete  epitome  of 
the  central,  vitalizing  truths  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ;  and,  as  such,  it  has  nothing  in  common 
with  Judaism,  or  its  antiquated  and  bloody  cere- 
monial rites.  It  comes  to  us,  fresh  from  the  heart 
and  the  lips  of  Christ,  eloquent  with  his  spirit 
and  with  his  truth. 

But  Paul  says  (Col.  ii.  11):  "In  whom  also 
ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision,  made 
without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ." 

"  Does  he  not  mean  that  we  were,  in  some 
way,  thus  circumcised  in  the  person  of  the  infant 
Christ?"  Nay.  The  circumcision  here  spok- 
en of  is  evidently  that  work  of  grace  which  he 
wrought  in  their  hearts  by  his  spirit — a  work  of 
which  circumcision  proper  was  only  an  imper- 
fect symbol,  and  not  that  work  wrought  in  his 


l80  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

flesh  when  he  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth 
day.  That  fleshly  circumcision  was  made  with 
hands,  but  this  without  hands.  That  put  off  a  bit 
of  the  flesh  of  a  sinless  man,  but  this  "puts  off 
the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  "  for  sinful  men. 
That  was  a  carnal  ordinance,  this  is  a  spiritual 
renewal.  That  was  an  act  of  obedience  to  the 
letter  of  the  law,  this  is  an  effect  of  the  opera- 
tion of  divine  grace.  That  was  a  characteristic 
of  the  dispensation  of  types  and  shadows,  this 
is  the  crowning  glory  of  the  dispensation  of  spir- 
itual realities.  That  simply  certified  that  Jesus 
was  a  Jew,  and,  as  such,  entitled  to  all  the  rights 
and  immunities  of  a  Jew;  this  made  those  Colos- 
sians  genuine  Christians,  heirs  and  trophies  of 
the  regenerating  grace  of  God. 

But  we  are  told  that  circumcision  still  survives 
in  baptism,  the  latter  being  the  badge  of  mem- 
bership in  the  church  now,  as  circumcision  was 
anciently.  This  information  would  be  very  im- 
portant, indeed,  if  it  were  true.  It  assumes  the 
identity  of  the  Christian  Church  and  the  Jewish 
Commonwealth — an  assumption  not  only  not 
true,  but  utterly  and  hopelessly  false,  in  every 
particular. 

The  ancient  Jewish  Commonwealth  was  simply 
a  religious  nationality — a  nation  under  theocratic 
government.    The  Christian  Church  is  a  spiritual 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  l8l 

body,  having  properly  no  political  or  national 
character  or  functions. 

Take  the  Apostolic  Church  at  Jerusalem  and 
contrast  it  with  the  Jewish  Commonwealth: 

The  one  was  composed  of  natural  men,  the 
other  of  regenerate  men.  In  the  one  piety  was 
not  necessary  in  order  to  membership,  in  the 
other  it  was  the  chief  qualification. 

To  the  one  were  added  daily  by  natural  birth 
all  male  children  of  Jewish  parents,  to  the  other 
were  added  daily  by  spiritual  birth  such  only  as 
were  saved.  The  one  was  made  up  chiefly  of 
worldly,  impenitent  persons,  with  whom  religion 
was  an  afiair  of  forms  and  ceremonies  and  state- 
craft; the  other  was  composed  chiefly,  if  not  en- 
tirely, of  persons  with  whom  religion  was  a  mat- 
ter of  heart  and  life — persons  who  gave  evidence 
of  genuine  penitence  and  living  faith,  and  who 
Avillingly  gave  up  all  for  Christ. 

The  members  of  the  one  boasted  the  law  of 
God  written  on  tables  of  stone,  but  ignored  it 
in  their  lives.  The  members  of  the  other  had 
that  law  written  on  their  hearts,  and  illustrated 
it  in  their  lives. 

The  one  institution  was  built  on  the  Covenant 
of  Works:  "This  do,  and  thou  shalt  live;"  the 
other  was  erected  on  a  better  covenant,  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace:    "Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 


1 82  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  The  one  had 
the  Levitical  priesthood,  with  Aaron  at  its  head ; 
the  other  had  but  one  priest,  Jesus  the  Son  of 
God. 

The  contrast  could  not  well  be  more  complete. 
The  Christian  Church  is  a  new  institution,  dis- 
tinct from  the  old  Jewish  economy,  and  totally 
different  from  it  in  all  things ;  having  a  new  and 
better  covenant,  a  new  and  better  sacrifice,  a  new 
and  better  high  priest,  new  and  better  promises, 
a  spiritual  membership,  admitted  on  new  and 
better  conditions,  and  by  new  and  better  tests 
of  fitness. 

If  a  man  could  demonstrate  that  black  is  white, 
that  darkness  is  light,  that  evil  is  good,  that  sick- 
ness is  health,  that  death  is  life ;  then,  perchance, 
he  might  be  able  to  prove  that  the  old  Jewish 
Commonwealth  and  the  Church  of  Christ  are  one 
and  the  same. 

They  are  not  the  same  in  any  just  sense  what- 
ever. They  have  not  the  oneness  of  identity, 
nor  of  continuity,  nor  yet  of  similarity.  They 
have  only  the  same  God,  and  a  part  of  his  ora- 
cles of  divine  truth  in  common.  And  being  so 
entirely  unlike  in  all  else,  they  are  also  wholly 
unlike  in  their  badges  of  membership. 

But  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  the  ancient 
Jewish  Commonwealth  and  the  Church  of  Christ 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  1 83 

are  really  one,  and  that  circumcision  does  sur- 
vive in  the  form  of  baptism,  and  that  children 
ought  to  be  admitted  into  this  Jewish  Christian 
Church  now  by  baptism,  as  they  were  anciently 
admitted  into  the  Jewish  Commonwealth  by  cir- 
cumcision. Admit  all  this  and  what  follows? 
Why,  nothing  less  than  this:  The  Church  must 
have  a  High  Priest  in  its  earthly  sanctuary,  as 
anciently.  It  must  have  its  priests  and  Levites. " 
It  must  have  its  heads  of  tribes,  its  Sanhedrim, 
and  its  voice  of  authority  which  none  may  dis- 
pute. And  when  it  has  all  these  things,  what  is 
it  but  the  Church  of  Rome?  And  if  this  plea 
for  infant  baptism  from  circumcision  is  valid  at 
all,  it  proves  that  the  Church  of  Rome  is  the 
true  apostolic,  Jewish  Church  of  Christ,  and  that 
all  other  churches  are  schismatic,  heretical  sects. 
And  this  puts  Luther  and  Calvin,  Knox,  Cran- 
mer  and  Wesley  into  a  most  unpleasant  plight. 
For  it  exhibits  them  as  most  unsaintly  schism- 
atics, opposing  the  Pope  and  the  true  Church. 

When  our  Protestant  brethren  have  succeeded 
in  proving  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  Common- 
wealth and  the  Church  of  Christ,  their  first  duty 
will  be  to  cease  their  protest  against  Rome,  and 
to  seek  immediate  reconciliation  with  her  as  the 
only  true  Church. . 

But  I  submit  that  an  argument  which  involves 


1 84  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

the  inevitable  overthrow  of  Protestantism  is  pre- 
sumptively false,  and  ought  not  to  be  received 
by  sincere  Protestants,  except  as  the  result  of 
the  most  careful  scrutiny,  and  in  obedience  to 
the  most  rigid  and  undeniable  proofs  of  its  ab- 
solute truthfulness.  If  this  circumcision-baptism 
theory  could  be  proven,  it  would  not  only  sus- 
tain infant  baptism,  but  the  Pope,  the  College 
of  Cardinals  and  the  entire  machinery  of  Roman- 
ism. If  true,  it  is  the  death-knell  of  Protestant- 
ism. 

Protestant  ministers  engaged  in  the  vain  at- 
tempt to  substantiate  it  could  not  possibly  do 
anything  more  absurd  and  hopeless,  nor  can  the 
wisest  friend  of  Romanism  devise  a  scheme  more 
perfectly  adapted  to  destroy  the  last  vestiges  of 
Protestantism  and  to  give  Rome  universal  and 
perpetual  dominion.  The  only  safety  of  the 
Protestant,  and  the  only  despair  of  the  Roman- 
ist, is  in  the  utter  absence  of  proof  of  this  theory ; 
nay,  the  presence  of  undeniable,  overwhelming 
evidence  that  this  entire  claim  of  identity  is  false. 

But,  again,  suppose  we  concede  for  a  moment 
all  that  the  most  ardent  devotee  of  infant  bap- 
tism will  claim,  that  the  Covenant  of  Circumcis- 
ion is  now  in  force  in  the  Church  of  Christ ;  that 
this  covenant  includes  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
("In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  18$ 

blessed." — Gen.  xii.  3),  and  that  the  form  of 
circumcision  has  been  changed  into  baptism. 
Then  these  are  some  of  the  consequences  that 
inevitably  follow : 

I.  Male  servants  and  slaves  must  be  baptized, 
for  such  were  circumcised. 

II.  Females  must  not  be  baptized,  since  they 
were  not  circumcised. 

III.  All  the  male  children  of  members  of  the 
Church  must  be  baptized  on  the  eighth  day,  for 
that  is  the  day  named  in  the  covenant. 

IV.  All  males  who  are  thus  baptized  are  to  be 
reckoned  as  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham, 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  bound  by  all  the 
obligations  of  Judaism. 

V.  There  are  now  no  Jews  in  the  world,  ex- 
cept such  as  are  baptized,  since  circumcision  is 
performed  now  by  baptism. 

VI.  The  Church  of  Christ,  and  that  alone,  is 
the  true  owner  of  the  earthly  Canaan. 

VII.  All  who  are  not  baptized  are  forever 
lost,  for  the  male  child  which  was  not  circum- 
cised was  to  be  cut  off  from  his  people.  He 
had  no  right  to  the  benefits  of  that  covenant, 
and  if  that  was  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  he  was 
forever  lost.  If,  therefore,  baptism  is  the  new 
form  of  circumcision,  then  no  unbaptized  person 
can  have  the  benefits  of  the  Covenant  of  Cir- 


1 86  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

cumcision;  and  if  that  covenant  be  really  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  then  it  follows  beyond  a 
peradventure  that  no  unbaptized  person  can  be 
saved. 

Thus  this  boasted  circumcision  argument  car- 
ries with  it  such  consequences  as  demonstrate 
to  every  sane  mind  its  utter  falsity. 

Do  you  wonder  that  I  replied  to  the  appeal 
of  my  old  pastor's  wife  in  terms  indicating  little 
respect  for  the  Abrahamic  Covenant  of  Circum- 
cision as  a  warrant  for  infant  baptisrh?  That 
covenant  was  a  good  thing  in  its  day.  It  served 
its  purpose  admirably,  and  then  it  gave  place  to 
a  better  and  bloodless  covenant — resting  on  the 
one  offering  of  Christ,  and  assuring  spiritual  and 
eternal  blessings. 

God's  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with  Abraham 
twenty-four  years  before  the  Covenant  of  Cir- 
cumcision, I  did  not  and  do  not  reject.  That 
was  confirmed  in  Christ  by  the  very  same  act 
by  which  the  Covenant  of  Circumcision  was 
taken  away  and  nailed  to  his  cross.  That  Cove- 
nant of  Grace  is  open  to  all.  Baptism  can  not 
secure  its  benefits,  nor  can  the  lack  of  baptism 
forfeit  them.  If  it  were  otherwise,  then  bap- 
tism would  have  power  to  save,  and  the  absence 
of  baptism  would  render  salvation  impossible. 

But  some  tell  us  that  Christians  are  children 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  187 

of  Abraham — that  they  are  called  the  seed  of 
Abraham.  Yes,  but  in  what  sense?  Not  in  the 
sense  of  natural  generation,  surely!  No  one 
believes  a  thing  so  ridiculously  absurd  as  that! 
What  then?  Why,  in  a  spiritual  sense  only. 
Abraham  believed  God — and  his  faith  became 
an  eminent  example  and  illustration  of  all  true 
faith.  So  he  is  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the 
father  of  the  faithful.  If  then  you  believe  God, 
you  are  a  child  of  Abraham — in  the  sense  that 
you  do  as  he  did.  You  follow  his  example.  You 
become,  by  your  faith,  a  member  of  the  great 
company  of  believers,  of  which,  because  of  the 
priority  and  eminence  of  his  faith,  Abraham  has 
been  called  the  father,  and  in  that  sense,  and  in 
that  alone,  are  you  his  seed. 

Does  it  follow  that  your  child,  born  of  your 
flesh,  is  of  the  seed  of  Abraham?  By  no  means. 
Your  child  can  become  a  child  of  Abraham  only 
in  the  same  sense,  and  in  the  same  way,  that  you 
did — by  believing  God  for  himself.  This  is  as 
plain  as  that  two  and  two  make  four ;  and  yet  pious 
pedobaptist  ministers  are  often  conveniently  blind 
to  it.  But  a  man  who  refuses  to  see  it,  ought  not 
to  wonder  if  men  doubt  his  intelligence  or  the 
purity  of  his  motives ;  they  can  not  help  it,  and 
generally,  as  the  more  charitable  way,  they  will 


I88  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

give  him  credit  for  honesty  at  the  expense  of 
his  judgment  and  good  sense. 

Being  yourself  a  child  of  Abraham  by  faith, 
it  is  your  privilege  and  your  duty  to  endeavor 
by  a  holy  life,  by  faithful  instruction,  and  by 
earnest  prayer,  to  induce  your  children  to  exer- 
cise a  like  faith,  and  to  become  thereby  heirs  with 
you  of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  It  is  your  priv- 
ilege and  your  duty  to  do  all  you  can  to  bring 
your  dear  ones  to  God,  but  you  can  do  it  only 
by  way  of  the  cross.  The  way  to  heaven  is  not 
by  infant  baptism,  but  by  way  of  Christ  cruci- 
fied. Go  with  your  dear  ones  to  Gethsemane, 
and  Calvary,  and  Olivet.  Show  them  the  dear 
Master  agonizing  and  dying  for  their  sins,  and 
ascending  to  the  Father;  and  if  that  does  not 
bring  them  to  penitence,  and  faith,  and  hope, 
you  may  rest  assured  that  the  baptismal  font  is 
of  no  use.  If  they  will  not  heed  the  dying, 
risen  Savior,  you  may  depend  upon  it,  they  will 
not  care  for  Abraham,  nor  for  any  or  all  of  his 
covenants. 

And  when  you  carry  their  case  to  the  throne 
of  mercy,  your  weary,  aching  heart  will  need 
no  other  plea  than  the  blood  of  Jesus,  Indeed, 
that  is  the  only  plea  that  can  find  admission 
there.  The  devout  Catholic  may  plead  the  name 
of  the  Virgin  Mary  there,   but  it  can  not  be 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  1 89 

heard.  The  devout  pedobaptist  may  plead  the 
name  of  Abraham,  but  all  in  vain.  Only  one 
name  can  avail  there — the  name  of  Jesus.  "If 
ye  shall  ask  anything  in  my  name,  I  will  do  it. " 
That  is  a  full  warrant  for  claiming  all  you  need, 
and  it  is  from  the  lips  of  our  Lord  himself.  All 
power  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  in  his  hands, 
and  he  is  able  to  redeem  every  promise  with 
absolute  certainty.  Bring  your  dear  ones,  then, 
in  the  arms  of  faith,  not  to  the  baptismal  font, 
on  doubtful  authority  at  the  best — on  a  supposed 
authority  that  has  never  yet  been  clearly  vindi- 
cated, and  that  apparently  never  can  be — but 
directly  to  Christ,  and  plead  his  own  precious 
promise.  In  this  you  will  be  doing  right  beyond 
any  doubt — for  Christ  himself  invites  you  to  do 
so  in  these  blessed  words:  "Ask  and  receive, 
that  your  joy  may  be  full,"  and  "Ask,  and  it 
shall  be  given  unto  you." 

Many  years  have  passed  since  I  received  the 
letter  from  my  dear  old  pastor's  wife,  asking  me 
so  pathetically,  "What  can  you  plead  in  behalf 
of  your  dear  children?  You  have  rejected  in- 
fant baptism,  and  with  it  the  Covenant  of  Cir- 
cumcision made  with  Abraham.  What  is  there 
left  ?  What  can  you  now  plead  in  behalf  of  your 
dear  children?"  and  I  am  only  the  more  firmly 
convinced  each  passing  year,  that  Christ  is  still 


190  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

left  me,  and  that  his  name  and  his  blood  are  an 
all-sufficient  plea,  and  I  still  adhere  to  my  reply : 
"Your  question  is  a  fair  one.  I  have  indeed 
rejected  infant  baptism,  and  as  for  circumcision, 
I  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  I  am  not  a  Jew, 
nor  have  I  the  least  desire  to  be  one.  And  yet 
I  have  one  plea  to  urge  in  behalf  of  my  dear 
children.  It  is  a  short  and  simple  plea,  yet  one 
of  infinite  value.  I  can  and  I  do  plead  in  their 
behalf  the  blood  of  Jesus,  and  I  would  not  give 
up  this  plea  for  tens  of  thousands  of  Abrahams, 
and  uncounted  Covenants  of  Circumcision.  I 
am  satisfied  with  it." 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  I9I 


NUMBER  XIII. 


' '/  like  the  Baptists  very  much.  They  are  a  good 
people.  But  tliere  is  one  thing  about  them  that 
I  never  could  understand,  and  that  is  tJieir 
close  communion.  I  can  7iot  see  why  tJiey 
should  be  so  narrow.^' 

While  pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church  in  the 
city  of  P ,  I  formed  the  acquaintance  of  Sis- 
ter M ,  a  most  excellent  Christian  lady,  a 

member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  She  was 
an  elderly  lady — a  mother  in  Israel — always  in- 
terested in  every  good  work,  and  very  fond  of 
Christian  conversation.  She  was  too  infirm  to 
go  abroad  much,  and  at  her  request,  I  often  call- 
ed at  her  huuse  to  talk  over  the  interests  of  the 
Master's  work,  especially  in  our  city. 

One  day  she  surprised  me  by  alluding  to  our 
denominational  differences,  a  matter  which  had 
never  before  been  mentioned  in  our  interviews. 
After  speaking  of  the  zeal  of  certain  members 
of  my  church  in  the  cause  of  temperance,  she 
continued : 

*'  I  like  the  Baptists  very  much.     They  are  a 


192  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

good  people.  But  there  is  one  thing  about  tlaem 
I  never  could  understand,  and  that  is  their  close 
communion.  I  can  not  see  why  they  should  be 
so  narrow." 

Thus  challenged,  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  aid 
her  in  the  solution  of  this  very  strange  problem, 
so  troublesome  to  so  many  of  the  dear  disciples 
of  the  Master.     So  I  said : 

"Do  you  really  desire  to  understand  our  close 
communion?" 

'♦Certainly  I  do." 

'*Well,  I  think  I  can  make  it  plain  to  you  in 
a.few  moments." 

"If  you  can,  I  wish  you  would.  It  would 
be  a  great  relief  to  me  to  know  that  they  have 
a  good  reason  for  it." 

"Very  well,  I  will  try.  You  are  a  Presby- 
terian, I  believe,  are  you  not?" 

"  Yes,  sir ;  I  have  been  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  from  childhood." 

"Do  you  fully  indorse  the  doctrines  and  us- 
ages of  the  Presbyterian  Church?" 

* '  Certainly,  sir ;  I  am  a  thorough  Presbyterian, 
in  all  respects. " 

"Then  you  believe  in  the  Presbyterian  views 
and  usages  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper?" 

"Of  course;  I  think  they  are  scriptural  and 
right." 


BEHIND  tHE  Scenes.  193 

'  *  Well,  let  us  see  if  we  understand  those  views 
and  usages  alike.  Presbyterians  believe  and 
teach  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  Church  ordi- 
nance, and  that  only  those  who  are  members  of 
the  Church  in  good  standing  are  entitled  to  par- 
take of  it.  They  also  believe  and  teach  that  bap- 
tized persons  only  are  members  in  good  stand- 
ing in  any  gospel  Church.  In  other  words,  Pres- 
byterians hold  that  only  such  persons  have  a 
right  to  that  table  as  are  members,  baptized 
members,  of  evangelical  churches,  and  they  in- 
vite such  and  such  only.  Am  I  correct  in  this 
statement  of  their  views  and  practice?" 

"Yes,  sir;  you  have  stated  our  views  and 
practice  precisely. " 

"And  you  believe  them  fully? " 

"I  do  ;  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  are  script- 
ural and  true." 

"Then,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  you  believe 
firmly  that  scriptural  baptism  and  church-mem- 
bership are  prerequisites  to  the  Lord's  table; 
that  faith  is  not  enough  to  entitle  any  one  to 
appear  there;  and  in  this  view  you  agree  with 
the  membership  of  the  Presbyterian  Church?" 

"You  are  not  mistaken.     That  is  just  what 

we  believe  and  practice.     We  all  think  that  a 

person  who  is  not  baptized,  and  who  is  not  also 

a  member  in  good  standing  in  some  evangelical 

13 


194  BEHIND   THE    SCENES. 

church,  ought  not  to  go  to  the  Lord's  table. 
He  ought  first  to  be  baptized  and  unite  with 
some  church,  and  then  take'^the  Supper." 

"Exactly.  And  you  think  that  those  who 
are  sprinkled  are  baptized,  and  therefore  you 
invite  them." 

"To  be  sure  we  do.  We  accept  sprinkling 
as  valid  baptism,  and  we  regard  infant  sprinkling, 
too,  as  real  baptism  ;  but  we  do  not  reject  im- 
mersion as  baptism.  We  regard  you  Baptists  as 
baptized  believers,  and  would  welcome  you  to 
the  Lord's  table  among  us.  Why  do  you  not 
welcome  us  to  the  Lord's  table  in  your  churches?" 

"Ah  !  that's  the  point  precisely.  But  I  think 
you  can  answer  that  question  yourself.  Suppose 
now,  my  sister,  that  you  wake  up  some  bright 
morning  holding  precisely  the  same  views  re- 
specting admission  to  the  Lord's  table  that  you 
now  hold,  but  firmly  convinced  that  immersion 
upon  a  public  profession  of  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  is  the  only  scriptural  baptism,  and  that 
sprinkling  is  not  baptism  at  all,  what  would  you 
be  then  ?  What  could  you  be  but  a  close  com- 
munion Baptist?" 

"Oh,  I  see  it  at  last;  I  see  it.  Of  course,  I 
should  be  a  Baptist,  and  that  without  changing 
my  views  about  communion  one  bit.  It  is  close 
baptism  that  makes  it  seem  such  close  commun- 


BEHIND   THE    SCENES.  1 95 

ion.  How  much  I  have  wronged  you  Baptists 
by  my  hard  thoughts  and  cruel  words  about  your 
narrowness  and  "bigotry ;  while  it  is  all  the  while 
a  noble,  firm  fidelity  to  principle.  I  hope  you 
will  forgive  me,  for  I  did  it  ignorantly,  and  rest 
assured  I  shall  never  again  complain  of  close 
communion." 

That  good  sister  did  not  become  a  Baptist — 
being  satisfied  with  her  sprinkling — but  she  gave 
Baptists  due  credit  for  their  integrity,  in  abiding 
the  just  consequences  of  their  own  convictions 
of  Bible  truth  and  Christian  duty. 

Happening  in  the  city  of  X one  day  on 

business,  and  hearing  a  church  bell,  I  dropped 
in,  hoping  to  hear  a  sermon.  I  was  not  disap- 
pointed. The  church  was  United  Presbyterian, 
and  the  preacher  (a  wide-awake  Scotchman)  de- 
livered an  inspiring  sermon.  In  it  he  discoursed 
of  Christian  charity.  Alluding  to  the  Baptists, 
and  the  abuse  heaped  upon  them  as  close  com- 
munionists,  he  said : 

"The  Baptists  are  no  more  chargeable  with 
close  communion  than  are  the  Presbyterians. 
They  hold,  in  common  with  us,  and,  indeed,  in 
common  with  the  great  body  of  evangelical  Chris- 
tians, that  baptism  is  a  scriptural  prerequisite  to 
the  Lord's  table.  They  are  firmly  convinced  that 
immersion  only  is  baptism;    and  therefore,  as 


196  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

honest  Christians,  they  can  not  invite  to  that 
table  any  who  have  not  been  immersed.  All 
honor  to  the  Baptists  for  their  firm  maintenance 
of  principle  in  the  face  of  bitter  opposition.  Let 
no  man  twit  them  of  close  communion.  It  is 
not  a  question  about  communion,  but  about  bap- 
tism. We  have  no  controversy  with  them  about 
communion.  It  is  a  controversy  about  baptism, 
and  about  baptism  only.  We  think  they  are 
wrong  about  baptism.  Let  us  reason  with  them 
about  that,  and  try  to  convince  them  that  they 
are  mistaken  ;  but  let  us  be  honest  and  confess 
that  if  they  are  right  about  baptism,  they  are 
right  about  all  the  rest." 

As  I  was  an  entire  stranger  to  the  congrega- 
tion, and  to  the  preacher,  I  knew  that  he  had  not 
said  these  things  to  flatter  me,  but  because  he 
was  a  well-informed,  honest  man,  and  loved .  to 
speak  the  truth. 

In  the  beginning  of  my  ministry,  before  I  was 
ordained,  I  invited  a  Presbyterian  minister  to  oc- 
cupy my  pulpit  on  communion  Sabbath  and  ad- 
minister the  Lord's  Supper,  and  he  accepted  my 
invitation. 

There  was  at  that  time  in  my  congregation  a 
young  man,  a  very  recent  convert,  and  a  very 
zealous  Christian  worker.  He  was  an  English- 
man, and  had  been  sprinkled  in  infancy  in  the 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  19/ 

Church  of  England.  Afterward  he  had  become 
an  avowed  atheist,  and  was  such  when  I  first 
met  him.  At  his  earnest  request,  I  privately- 
canvassed  the  whole  ground  of  speculative  athe- 
ism with  him.  I  found  him  a  sharp,  trained 
reasoner,  of  a  very  decided  metaphysical  cast 
of  mind,  and  our  discussions  were  continued  for 
several  months.  At  length  he  was  thoroughly 
convinced  of  his  mistake,  made  a  public  renun- 
ciation of  his  atheism,  sought  Christ,  and  became 
a  very  devout,  earnest  Christian.  His  talents 
made  him  very  useful,  and  he  was  almost  immedi- 
ately made  superintendent  of  the  Sunday-school, 
in  which  position  he  was  doing  good  service  at 

the  time  Rev.  Mr.  S came  at  my  invitation 

to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  in  my  church. 
He  had  not  united  with  any  church,  being  in 
doubt  about  which  one  he  ought  to  unite  with. 
Ultimately  he  became  a  Congregationalist,  and 
is  now,  and  has  been  for  many  years,  an  honor- 
ed and  useful  minister  of  the  gospel  in  that  de- 
nomination. 

I  loved  him  tenderly  as  a  Christian  brother, 
and  a  very  dear  friend,  and,  in  common  with 
many  of  my  brethren,  I  greatly  desired  to  have 
him  sit  down  with  us  at  the  Lord's  table.  At 
that  time  I  had  not  examined  the  question  of 
communion,  but  was  governed  in  the  matter  by 


198  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

misguided  feelings,  and  consequently  was  in  fa- 
vor of  open  communion.     So  I  spoke  to  Rev. 

Mr.  S ,  confidentially,  and  requested  him  to 

speak  to  Bro.  H privately,  and  invite  him 

to  come  to  the  table  with  us.  I  told  of  his  re- 
cent conversion,  his  zeal  for  Christ,  and  our  great 
love  for  him  as  a  true  and  devoted  disciple. 

Mr.  S listened  attentively  until  I  conclud- 
ed, then  he  said : 

"Is  Bro.  H a  member  of  any  church?" 

"No;  he  has  not  yet  decided  where  he  ought 
to  unite.  He  has  that  matter  now  under  pray- 
erful consideration." 

"Well,  I  can  not  invite  him  to  the  Lord's 
table.  That  is  an  ordinance  of  the  Church,  and 
only  those  who  are  church-members  have  a  right 
to  come  to  it." 

' '  Oh,  but  he  is  such  a  good  man !  We  all 
love  him  so  much!     Do,  please,  invite  him." 

"No ;  I  can  not.  As  for  loving  him,  you  can 
love  him  just  as  well,  and  fellowship  him  just  as 
much  if  he  does  not  come  to  the  table.  The 
Lord's  table  is  not  to  exhibit  pur  love  and  fellow- 
ship for  each  other,  but  to  commemorate  the 
death  of  our  Lord.      It  will  be  time  enough  for 

Bro.  H to  engage  in  the  observance  of  this 

church  service  when  he  has  become  a  member 
of  the  church, " 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  I99 

"But  Bro.  H has  been  baptized;  he  was 

baptized  in  infancy  in  the  Church  of  England. 
Isn't  that  enough?" 

**No,  sir.  The  Supper  is  a  church  ordinance, 
and  it  belongs,  not  to  all  who  are  baptized,  but 
only  to  those  who  are  baptized  members  of  the 

church.     Bro,  H has  been  baptized,  but  he 

is  not  a  member  of  any  church.  He  was  bap- 
tized by  a  minister  of  the  Church  of  England. 
Very  well.  We  respect  his  baptism.  But  he 
was  not  received  into  the  membership  of  the 
Church  of  England.  And  he  does  not  consider 
himself  a  member  of  that  church,  or  of  any  other, 
and  therefore  he  has  no  right  at  the  Lord's  table, 
and  we  have  no  right  to  invite  him  there  until  he 
unites  with  some  evangelical  church," 

And  Mr,  S was  firm,  and  I  was  obliged 

to  submit  to  what  I  then  deemed  a  very  great 
hardship,  and  a  grievous  wrong.  But  I  have 
long  since  learned  that  he  was  right  in  putting 
the  order  of  the  Lord's  house  above  the  clamor 
of  private  affection,  or  personal  interest  and  feel- 
ing. 

In  refusing  to  invite  Bro,  H to  the  Lord's 

table  he  acted  upon  strict  Presbyterian  princi- 
ples, and  upon  strict  Baptist  principles  as  well. 
And  in  support  of  his  action,  he  might  have  ar- 
rayed the  standard  writers  and  authorities  of  al- 


2(X)  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

most  every  denomination  in  Christendom.  Take 
a  few  samples.  Dr.  Doddridge,  Congregation- 
alist,  says:  "It  is  certain  that,  as  far  as  our 
knowledge  of  antiquity  reaches,  no  unbaptized 
person  received  the  Lord's  Supper."  {Lectures, 
page  511.) 

' '  How  excellent  soever  any  man's  character 
is,  he  must  be  baptized  before  he  can  be  looked 
upon  as  completely  a  member  of  the  Church  of 
Christ."     {Lectures,  page  511.) 

Richard  Baxter,  Congregationalist,  says : 
"What  man  dare  go  in  a  way  that  hath  nei- 
ther precept  nor  example  to  warrant  it,  from  a 
way  that  hath  a  full  current  of  both ;  yet  they 
that  will  admit  members  into  the  visible  church 
without  baptism  do  so. "  {Plain  Scriptural  Proof, 
page  24. ) 

Rev.  Dr.  Dwight,  Congregationalist,  says:  "// 
is  an  indispensable  qualification  for  this  ordinance 
that  the  candidate  for  communion  be  a  member 
of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ,  in  full  standing. 
By  this  I  intend  that  he  should  be  a  man  of 
piety ;  that  he  should  have  made  a  public  pro- 
fession of  religion,  and  that  he  should  have 
been  baptized."  {Systematic  Theology,  S^x.  160.) 
Again  he  says  (Ser.  156):  "Except  a  man  be 
born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  etc.  To  be 
bora  of  water  is  to  be  baptized.     To  be  bom 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  201 

of  the  Spirit  is  to  be  regenerated.  The  king- 
dom of  God  is  a  phrase  used  in  the  gospel  in  a 
twofold  sense,  and  denotes  his  visible  and  invis- 
ible kingdom,  or  the  collection  of  apparent  and 
the  collection  of  real  saints.  The  indispensable 
condition  of  entering  the  former,  or  visible  king- 
dom, is  here  made  by  our  Savior,  baptism.  The 
indispensable  qualification  for  admission  into  the 
invisible  kingdom  is  regeneration,  the  great  act 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  constitutes  men  real 
saints.  Baptism,  therefore,  is  here  made,  by  Christ, 
a  condition  absolute  to  our  authorized  entrance  into 
his  visible  Church.'' 

Rev.  Dr.  Hopkins,  Congregationalist,  says : 
"No  one  is  to  be  considered  and  treated  as  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  Christ  unless  he  be 
baptized  with  water,  as  this  is  the  only  door  by 
which  persons  can  be  introduced  into  the  visible 
kingdom  of  Christ,  according  to  his  appoint- 
ment."    [Curtiss  on  Com.,  page  125.) 

Rev.  F.  G.  Hibbard,  Methodist  Episcopal, 
says  {Christian  Baptism,  page  174,  Second  Part): 
"Before  entering  upon  the  argument  before  us, 
it  is  but  just  to  remark  that,  in  one  principle, 
the  Baptist  and  pedobaptist  churches  agree. 
They  both  agree  in  rejecting  from  the  commun- 
ion at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  and  in  denying  the 
rights  of  church-fellowship  to  all  who  have  not 


202  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

been  baptized.  Valid  baptism,  they  consider,  is 
essential  to  constitute  visible  church-member- 
ship. This  also  we  hold.  The  only  question, 
then,  that  here  divides  us  is,  What  is  essential 
to  valid  baptism  ?  The  Baptists,  in  passing  the 
sweeping  sentence  of  disfranchisement  upon  all 
other  Christian  churches,  have  only  acted  upon 
a  principle  held  in  common  with  all  other  Chris- 
tian churches,  viz.:  that  baptism  is  essential  to 
church  membership.  They  have  denied  our  bap- 
tism, and,  as  unbaptized  persons,  we  have  been 
excluded  from  their  table.  That  they  err  greatly 
in  their  views  of  Christian  baptism  we,  of  course, 
believe.  But,  according  to  their  views  of  bap- 
tism, they  certainly  are  consistent  in  restricting 
thus  their  communion.  We  would  not  be  un- 
derstood as  passing  a  judgment  of  approval  upon 
their  course,  but  we  say  their  views  of  baptism 
force  them  upon  the  ground  of  strict  commun- 
ion, and  herein  they  act  upon  the  same  princi- 
ples as  other  churches,  /.  e.,  they  admit  only 
those  whom  they  deem  baptized  persons  to  the 
communion  table.  Of  course,  they  must  be  their 
own  judges  of  what  baptism  is.  It  is  evident 
that,  according  to  our  views  of  baptism,  we  can 
admit  them  to  our  communion;  but  with  their 
views  of  baptism,  it  is  equally  evident  that  they 
can  never  reciprocate  the  courtesy.     And  the 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  203 

charge  of  close  communion  is  no  more  applicable 
to  the  Baptists  than  to  us,  inasmuch  as  the  ques- 
tion of  church-fellowship  with  them  is  determined 
by  as  liberal  principles  as  it  is  with  any  other 
Protestant  churches,  so  far,  I  mean,  as  the  pres- 
ent subject  is  concerned ;  /.  e. ,  it  is  determined  by 
valid  baptism.'' 

Dr.  Wall,  Episcopal,  says  {Hist.  Infant  Bap- 
tism, Part  II.,  Chap.  9):  "No  church  ever  gave 
the  communion  to  any  persons  before  they  were 
baptized.  Among  all  the  absurdities  that  ever 
were  held,  none  ever  maintained  that  any  person 
should  partake  of  the  communion  before  he  was 
baptized." 

Open  communion  is  a  modern  innovation, 
having  no  sanction  in  Scripture,  in  the  history 
of  the  churches,  or  in  reason. 

That  it  has  made  some  inroads  upon  the  or- 
der and  stability  of  some  churches  is  readily 
conceded,  and  that  it  is  a  growing  sentiment  in 
many  quarters  is  doubtless  true;  and  yet  the 
great  body  of  Christian  churches  still  reject  it, 
and  hold,  with  the  much  maligned  Baptists,  that 
baptism  and  church-membership  are  essential  to 
an  orderly  participation  in  the  solemn  service  of 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

Even  our  Episcopal  Methodist  friends,  al- 
though they  invite  all  who,  in  their  own  judg- 


204  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

ment,  are  Christians,  still  testify  in  their  Book 
of  Discipline  that  they  will  admit  no  one  to  the 
Lord's  table  among  them  who  is  guilty  of  any 
practice  for  which  they  would  exclude  a  member 
— a  declaration  in  itself  very  wise  and  proper, 
but  involving  fully  the  principle  of  church  con- 
trol over  the  Table.  Few  Methodists  will  care 
to  affirm  that  their  church  would  not  exclude 
from  her  membership  any  person  who  might 
actively  denounce  her  doctrines  as  untrue,  or 
her  practices  as  unscriptural.  If,  for  example, 
a  member  of  that  church  should  actively  teach 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  false  in  re- 
spect to  falling  from  grace,  he  would  speedily  be 
excluded.  Or  if  he  should  teach  vigorously  that 
sprinkling  and  infant  baptism  are  unscriptural 
and  wrong,  that  they  are  inventions  of  men  and 
ought  to  be  put  away  as  no  baptism  at  all,  and 
that  all  his  brethren  who  are  not  immersed  on  a 
profession  of  faith  are  unbaptized,  he  would  be 
promptly  expelled  from  the  church.  And  yet 
in  all  that  he  would  be  doing  just  what  honest 
Baptists  are  doing  all  the  time.  And  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  says,  in  an  official  way, 
in  her  Discipline,  that  she  will  admit  no  one  to 
the  Lord's  table  who  is  guilty  of  any  practice 
for  which  she  would  exclude  one  of  her  own 
members.    I  submit,  therefore,  with  all  due  def- 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  205 

erence,  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is 
a  close  communion  Church.  If  you  say  she  is 
open  communion,  I  admit  it.  The  fact  is,  judged 
by  her  own  official  standards,  she  is  both  close 
communion  and  open  communion,  having  close 
communion  principles,  but  open  communion  prac- 
tices. 

Open  communion  is  a  modern  thing  alto- 
gether, without  warrant  in  the  word  of  God. 
There  is  not  one  solitary  example  or  precept  for 
it  in  the  Scriptures.  They  are  entirely  silent 
about  it — as  a  thing  never  heard  of  in  that  age. 
And  the  early  history  of  the  Church  gives  it  no 
support.  On  the  contrary,  the  explicit  testimony 
of  Justin  Martyr,  about  the  middle  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  shows  that  only  baptized  believers 
were  then  permitted  to  partake  of  the  sacred 
Supper.  He  says,  speaking  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per: "This  food  is  called  Eucharist,  of  which 
it  is  lawful  for  no  other  person  to  partake  than 
one  who  believes  what  we  teach  to  be  true^  and 
who  has  been  bathed  in  the  bath  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  unto  regeneration,  and  who  so 
lives,  as  Christ  enjoins." 

The  catechism  of  the  Church  in  Geneva,  writ- 
ten by  Calvin,  embodies  the  universal  view  and 
practice  of  all  churches,  from  the  apostolic  age 
to  very  recent  times,  with  reference  to  the  rela- 


2o6  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

tion  of  baptism  and  the  Supper.  It  says:  "  Is 
it  enough  to  receive  both  (the  sacraments)  once 
in  a  lifetime?"  "It  is  enough  so  to  receive  bap- 
tism, which  may  not  be  repeated.  It  is  different 
with  the  Supper."  "What  is  the  difference?" 
"By  baptism  the  Lord  adopts  us,  and  brings  us 
into  his  Church,  so  as  thereafter  to  regard  us  as 
a  part  of  his  household.  After  he  has  admitted 
us  among  the  number  of  his  people,  he  testifies 
by  the  Supper  that  he  takes  a  continual  interest 
in  nourishing  us." 

Open  communion  has  no  support  from  sound 
reason.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  intended  to  com- 
memorate his  death,  not  to  manifest  our  Chris- 
tian fellowship  one  with  another.  "  For  as  often 
as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink"  this  cup,  ye 
proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  And 
Christ  himself  says,  '  *  This  do  in  remembrance 
of  me." 

But  suppose  we  grant  for  a  moment  all  that 
the  advocates  of  open  communion  claim,  viz.: 
that  the  Supper  is  an  act  of  Christian  fellowship, 
i.  e.,  that  in  eating  the  Supper  together.  Chris- 
tians express  their  fellowship  one  with  another 
as  Christians.  It  follows  that  each  one  Avho  eats 
at  that  table  thereby  indorses  all  the  rest  who 
eat  with  him  as  Christians,  for  an  act  expressive 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  20/ 

of  Christian  fellowship  for  a  person  means  an 
indorsement  of  that  person  as  a  Christian. 

Are  such  indorsements  to  be  given  by  Chris- 
tian people  carelessly?  Are  they  to  be  scattered 
about  promiscuously?  Are  they  to  be  handed 
out  generously  to  all  who  come  along?  Is  there 
no  responsibility  incurred  by  an  indiscriminate 
Christian  fellowship?  What  would  we  think  of 
a  business  man  who  would  continually  give  cer- 
tificates of  character  and  financial  responsibility 
to  eyery  man  who  would  apply,  on  the  mere 
affirmation  of  the  applicant;  that  he  was  honest 
and  responsible  ?  Would  we  regard  him  as  dis- 
creet ?  Would  we  deem  him  a  safe  and  prudent 
man  ?  Would  we  regard  his  certificates  as  val- 
uable evidences  of  character  and  financial  stand- 
ing? No;  we  would  think  such  a  procedure 
either  very  wicked,  or  very  foolish,  or  both — 
and  very  justly,  too.  And  we  would  laugh  at 
such  certificates  until  the  meanest  beggar  would 
be  ashamed  to  take  one.  And  yet  our  open 
communion  friends,  on  their  own  showing,  are 
scattering  broadcast  their  certificates  of  Christian 
character  quite  as  recklessly.  They  fellowship 
all  who  come,  and  invite  all  to  come  who  desire 
to — putting  the  sacred  Supper  out  in  the  street 
practically,  at  the  mercy  of  every  mendacious 
tramp.     And  then,  when  the  motley  crowd  of 


2o8  BEHIND  THE  SCENES. 

good,  bad  and  indifferent  are  gathered  about, 
they  proceed  to  express  Christian  fellowship  with 
them,  without  the  slightest  evidence  that  they 
are  all  Christians.  Is  that  wise?  Is  it  prudent? 
Is  it  honorable  ?  Is  it  reasonable  ?  Look  over 
the  company  of  communicants.  Yonder  are 
half  a  dozen  strangers.  No  one  knows  them. 
They  may  be  good  Christians,  but  they  bring 
no  evidence  of  it.  For  aught  any  one  knows, 
they  may  be  the  basest  of  base  hypocrites,  yet 
a  whole  church  proceeds  to  fellowship  them  as 
Christians.  Can*  anything  be  more  unreason- 
able? If  those  strangers  eat  and  drink  unworth- 
ily, and  therefore  to  their  own  condemnation, 
they  can  justly  plead  that  the  church  tempted 
them.  If  they  prove  utterly  unworthy  of  con- 
fidence, there  is  no  redress  for  the  community 
or  the  church.  They  can  present  themselves  at 
the  Lord's  table  at  the  next  communion  season, 
and  receive  the  full  Christian  fellowship  of  the 
very  church  whose  confidence  they  have  grossly 
abused;  and,  on  open  communion  principles, 
there  is  no  help  for  it.     Is  that  reasonable  ? 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  Open  com- 
munion practices  break  down  all  barriers  and 
neutralize  all  church  discipline.  A  member  of 
the  church  proves  himself  a  very  bad  man.  The 
church  promptly  expels  him  from  her  member- 


BEHIND  THE  SCENES.  2O9 

ship — publicly  withdraws  the  hand  of  fellowship, 
but  at  the  next  communion  season  that  bad  man 
presents  himself  at  the  Lord's  table,  in  that  same 
church,  and  the  whole  church  expresses  its  Chris- 
tian fellowship  with  him  by  eating  and  drinking 
with  him.  Is  that  reasonable?  Does  it  tend 
to  promote  the  purity  of  the  church  ?  Does  it  cul- 
tivate truthfulness  and  integrity  in  the  church? 
Is  it  likely  to  make  acts  of  discipline  effective  ? 
And  yet  it  is  an  inseparable  part  of  the  actual 
working  of  open  communion. 

If  the  act  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  really  expressive  of  Christian  fellowship,  then 
reason  dictates  the  greatest  caution  in  respect  to 
our  associates  at  the  sacred  table,  lest  we  express 
Christian  fellowship  for  those  who  are  not  Chris- 
tians, and  so  bring  reproach  on  the  name  of 
Christ. 

More,real  Christian  fellowship  can  not  exist  in 
the  absence  of  evidence  of  Christian  character. 
In  law,  a  man  is  deemed  innocent  until  proven 
guilty,  and  in  business  a  man  is  esteemed  honest 
(yet  with  great  caution)  until  proven  dishonest. 
But  in  religion  a  man  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
a  Christian  in  the  absence  of  satisfactory  evi- 
dence. The  mass  of  men  are  not  Christians, 
and  the  drift  of  human  nature  is  not  in  that 
direction.  A  stranger  presents  himself  at  the 
14 


2IO  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

Lord's  table.  That  fact,  of  itself,  does  not  es- 
tablish his  character  as  a  Christian.  For  aught 
we  know  he  may  be  a  bad  man.  Certainly  we 
do  not  know,  with  any  reasonable  degree  of  cer- 
tainty, that  he  is  a  true  Christian.  How,  then, 
can  we  honestly  express  Christian  fellowship  with 
him  ?  We  do  not  know  his  character,  and  there- 
fore we  do  not  and  can  not  fellowship  him  as  a 
Christian.  If,  then,  we  proceed  to  express  Chris- 
tian fellowship  with  him,  we  express  that  which 
does  not  exist,  and  our  communion  is  the  solemn 
enactment  of  a  falsehood.  If,  then,  the  open 
communion  view  be  the  true  one,  and  the  act  of 
eating  the  Lord's  Supper  with  others  is  an  ex- 
pression of  Christian  fellowship  with  them,  our 
only  safety  is  to  eat  that  Supper  only  with  such 
persons  as  we  thoroughly  know  and  fully  esteem 
as  real  Christians.  For  with  such  persons  only 
can  we  have  true,  full  Christian  fellowship.  It 
follows  inevitably  that  our  open  communion 
friends  are  by  their  own  principles  reduced  to 
this  very  remarkable  dilemma — that  they  must 
choose  between  expressing  a  Christian  fellow- 
ship which  does  not  exist,  or  resort  to  the  most 
rigid  measures  to  restrict  the  expression  of  fel- 
lowship within  due  limits,  so  that  the  expression 
of  fellowship  shall  not  exceed  the  actual  fellow- 
ship.    But  this  compels  a  resort  to  the  sternest 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  211 

sort  of  restricted  communion  as  the  only  means 
of  escape  from  bearing  false  witness  at  the  table 
of  our  Lord.  A  system  whose  principles  are  so 
evidently,  necessarily  and  fatally  at  war  with  its 
practices,  can  not  be  true. 

The  Scriptures  plainly  make  baptism  the  first 
duty  of  the  believer,  whence  it  follows  that  it 
must  precede  the  Supper.  That  is  the  order 
enjoined  by  our  Lord  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20)  in 
the  great  commission:  "Go  ye  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you. "  Teaching,  bap- 
tizing, training — that  is  the  divine  order.  And 
the  inspired  apostles  so  understood  it,  observing 
it  in  all  their  work.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost 
they  first  preached  the  Word,  then  baptized  those 
who  believed,  then  broke  bread.  And  this  di- 
vine order  is  the  sum  total  of  close  communion 
in  Baptist  Churches.  Adherence  to  the  law  of 
Christ,  as  illustrated  in  the  work  of  his  apostles, 
is  the  head  and  front  of  our  offending. 

But  what  can  we  do  about  it?  We  must  obey 
Christ  and  observe  his  ordinances  as  he  instituted 
them,  even  though  we  be  traduced  for  so  doing. 
We  are  not  separatists.  We  make  no  laws  about 
either  ordinance.     We  simply  obey  Christ.   We 


212  BEHIND   THE  SCENES. 

want  our  brethren  to  do  the  same  thing,  and  be 
one  with  us  in  doing  as  Christ  directs.  Isn't  that 
fair?  We  ask  no  advantage,  claim  no  superior- 
ity, assert  no  authority,  but  beg  our  brethren  to 
obey  our  common  Lord. 

If  they  refuse  to  do  it,  and  go  off  and  set  up 
other  laws  and  contrary  usages,  we  can  not  help 
it.  We  put  up  no  bars,  create  no  tests,  and 
compel  no  divisions.  Others  go  away  and  set 
up  new  tests,  and  establish  new  practices,  and 
then  ask  us  to  put  their  new  tests  and  new  prac- 
tices on  a  par  with  the  old  ones  instituted  by  the 
Master;  and  because  we  can  not  do  that,  they 
call  us  hard  names,  brand  us  as  bigots,  and  charge 
us  with  close  communion.  Is  it  bigotry  to  obey 
Christ?  Is  it  wicked  to  observe  his  ordinances 
as  he  delivered  them  ?  Is  it  close  communion 
to  adhere  to  the  order  instituted  by  our  Lord  ? 
Who  are  excluded  by  it?  those  who  observe  it? 
No!  only  those  who  prefer  their  own  way  to 
Christ's  way.  Our  churches  are  open  to  all  Chris- 
tians who  are  willing  to  come  into  the  Church  in 
Christ's  way.  They  can  come  in  exactly  as  we 
did — in  Christ's  way.  And  the  Lord's  table 
among  us  is  open  to  them  on  precisely  the  same 
terms  as  to  ourselves ;  they  can  come  to  it  in 
Christ's  way  just  as  freely  as  we  can. 

And  yet  they  say  we  exclude  them.     It  is  a 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  213 

mistake;  they  exclude  themselves.  We  show 
them  the  law  of  Christ,  and  they  refuse  to  obey 
it,  and  go  off  and  set  up  for  themselves.  Is  that 
our  fault?  Must  we  give  up  Christ's  way,  and 
adopt  their  way,  to  win  them  back?  We  could 
not  succeed,  if  we  were  wiUing  to  try  it.  Some- 
body would  invent  some  other  new  way,  and 
many  would  accept  it,  and  the  divisions  and  dis- 
cords would  constantly  multiply. 

But  we  dare  not  do  it.  We  must  obey  Christ, 
for  he  is  King  in  Zion,  and  he  alone.  We  love 
our  brethren  much,  but  we  love  Christ  more. 
We  dread  their  harsh,  bitter,  unjust  words,  for 
they  hurt ;  but  we  dread  the  displeasure  of  our 
King  more.  So  we  will  keep  on  in  the  old  paths, 
ever  holding  out  the  torch  of  truth,  and  the  olive 
branch  of  peace,  in  the  name  of  Christ. 


214  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 


NUMBER  XIV. 


^*He  that  hath  my  commandments^  and  keepeth 
them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me."  .  .  .  **If  a 
man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words .^^  .  .  . 
"  P>  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I 
command  you.''  .  .  .  ''He  that  loveth  me  not, 
keepeth  not  my  sayings. " — -Jesus. 

With  these  tender  but  decisive  words  of  the 
Master  before  me,  I  could  not  do  less  than  test 
my  pedobaptist  practices  by  his  words. 

Doing  that  as  fairly  and  as  impartially  as  I 
could,  I  was  obliged  to  give  them  up,  as  oppos- 
ed to  his  commandments,  contrary  to  his  exam- 
ple, and  subversive  of  his  life-giving  words.  This 
was  not  an  easy  thing  for  me  to  do,  for  I  loved 
my  pedobaptist  brethren  very  dearly,  and  my 
love  was  evidently  reciprocated  by  them;  but 
when  the  crucial  test  came,  my  sorrowing  heart 
was  made  glad  by  the  discovery  that,  much  as 
I  loved  them,  I  loved  the  Master  more.  I  make 
no  boast ;  only  by  grace  I  am  what  I  am.  If  I 
braved  loss  for  his  sake,  it  was  because  his  love 
impelled  me.     If  I  attained  to  definite  and  firm 


BEHIND  THE   SCENES.  21$ 

c«u 'v<in£ioni;  of  scriptural  truth,  it  is  because  his 
wwJ"f^F  are  definite  and  firm,  and  easily  under- 
stood] by  the  earnest  and  prayerful  seeker  after 
truth.  But  I  was  not  alone  in  these  things.  In 
those  dar.k  and  trying  hours  there  was  one  by 
my  sioj  wl«o  is  yet  the  light  and  solace  of  my 
Hfe,  wli!',  by  her  faith  in  God,  her  love  of  Christ, 
and  hei  keen,  intuitive  perceptions  of  his  truth, 
was  to  1  le  a  tower  of  strength — my  quiet,  retir- 
ing, but  resolute  and  self-sacrificing  wife,  whose 
heroic  c  ounsel  has  ever  been,  Dare  to  do  rights 
no  mattjr  what  it  may  cost. 

These  sketches  are,  as  their  title  imports,  from 
real  life.  There  is  neither  fancy  nor  fiction  about 
them.  The  incidents  narrated  and  the  conver- 
sations detailed  actually  occurred.  "With  malice 
toward  none,"  but  "charity  toward  all,"  I  have 
herein  related  a  few  of  the  many  things  entering 
into  my  experiences  in  the  study  of  baptism,  in 
the  hope  that  the  relation  may  prove  serviceable 
to  those  who  desire  to  know  and  do  the  truth, 
suppressing  only  the  names  of  my  interlocutors, 
to  whom  I  would  not  knowingly  do  aught  of 
harm.  They  are  brethren  of  many  noble  quali- 
ties. Some  of  them  have  entered  into  their  rest, 
while  others  still  labor  in  hope,  earnestly  looking 
forward  to  refreshment  and  reward.  With  their 
virtues  and  graces  I  have  no  controversy ;  I  com- 


2l6  BEHIND   THE   SCENES. 

bat  only  their  errors.  As  noble  men  I  revere 
them ;  as  Christians  I  love  them ;  as  errorists  I 
oppose  them.  I  honor  their  virtues,  emulate 
their  graces,  and  seek  to  correct  their  errors. 
Nor  do  I,  in  this,  pretend  that  I  am  infaUible, 
or  free  from  error.  "To  err  is  human,"  and 
many  years  of  close  observation  have  taught  me 
that  he  is  doomed  to  disappointment  who  seeks 
perfection  beneath  the  stars.  But  of  all  types  of 
imperfection,  that  is  the  most  censurable  which 
is  content  with  itself,  and  cherishes  its  own  er- 
rors, or  the  errors  of  others,  excusing  itself  be- 
cause no  mortal,  with  undimmed  eye,  discerns 
perfectly  all  parts  of  the  absolute  truth. 

Grant  that  I  am  in  error  in  many  things,  as 
almost  certainly  I  am;  then  let  those  who  per- 
ceive my  errors  teach  me  the  truth,  and  as  they 
verify  it  by  the  divine  Word,  I  will  gladly  re- 
ceive it,  and  thank  them  for  their  kind  offices. 
It  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  have  written  these  sketch- 
es. I  love  my  pedobaptist  brethren  as  Christian 
brethren — Christian  and  beloved — but  in  error 
in  a  matter  of  vast  importance,  and  far-reaching 
in  its  consequences.  I  believe  they  love'  the 
truth,  and  I  would  help  them  to  perceive  it  by 
clearing  away  some,  at  least,  of  the  fogs  error 
has  exhaled  about  it.  Immersion  of  adults  is  as 
impotent  to  make  men  Christians  as  is  the  sprink- 


BEHIND   THE  SCENES.  21/ 

ling  of  infants;  but  immersion  is  a  duty  enjoined 
by  our  Lord  himself  upon  those  who  believe  in 
him,  while  sprinkling — infant  and  adult — is  an 
invention  of  men  which  actually  obscures  many 
portions  of  the  divine  Word,  and  in  the  case  of 
millions  prevents  obedience  to  the  plain  com- 
mandment of  Christ. 

I  do  not  say,  I  dare  not  say,  that  immersion 
is  essential  to  salvation;  but  I  do  say,  on  the 
authority  of  the  Lord  himself,  that  obedience 
to  his  commandments,  at  least  so  far  as  the  im- 
port of  those  commandments  can  be  perceived, 
is  indispensable  to  honest,  genuine  discipleship, 
and  that  he  only  who  is  willing  to  render  prompt 
and  cheerful  obedience  to  the  words  of  Christ  in 
all  things,  so  far  as  their  meaning  can  be  discov- 
ered, is  entitled  to  call  himself  a  Christian,  or  to 
demand  recognition  of  his  Christian  character 
from  others. 

I  ?,m  not  a  Baptist  because  I  love  much  water 
rather  than  little,  but  because  Jesus  commands 
immersion  instead  of  sprinkling,  and  the  immer- 
sion of  those  who  believe  instead  of  unconscious 
babes,  and  his  commandments  are  the  supreme 
law  of  my  life.  With  me  it  is  not  a  question 
of  water,  nor  a  question  of  getting  to  heaven, 
but  a  question  of  loyalty  to  Christ  and  oi  Jitmss 


2l8  BEHIND  THE   SCENES. 

for  heaven,  and  in  this  I  do  not  differ  from  the 
great  mass  of  my  Baptist  brethren  everywhere. 

If  any  one  says,  ' '  It  is  a  matter  of  indifferency, 
since  we  can  get  to  heaven  without  scriptural 
baptism,"  I  reply:  Is  the  desire  and  will  of 
your  Master  of  so  little  consequence  to  you? 
Do  you  not  care  whether  you  obey  him  or  not? 
If  you  do  not,  then  I  fear  you  love  him  not, 
since  he  says :  "  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep 
my  words." 

Rest  assured,  if  you  do  not  care  to  obey  Christ, 
you  really  do  not  love  him,  since  he  says:  "  He 
that  loveth  me  not  keepeth  not  my  sayings." 
Does  that  describe  you?  If  so,  heaven  would 
prove  but  an  irksome  prison,  should  you  chance 
somehow  to  get  there.  Beware !  there  is  danger 
in  such  indifferency. 

But  I  am  confident  there  are  many  thousands 
of  pedobaptists  who  honestly  and  earnestly  de- 
sire to  know  the  truth  about  these  matters,  and 
who  will  gladly  welcome  aid,  no  matter  whence 
it  may  come,  if  only  it  contributes  to  open  to 
them  the  temple  of  truth. 

To  such  I  send  forth  these  brief  sketches, 
with  an  earnest  prayer  that  their  mission  of  love 
may  not  prove  fruitless. 

And  if,  by  and  by,  I  am  permitted  to  know 
that  they  have  been  of  use  in  guiding  earnest 


BEHIND   THE   SCENES.  2I9 

souls  into  the  light,  and  in  leading  them  to  put 
away  the  inventions  of  men,  and  to  cherish  and 
observe  the  ordinances  of  Christ  in  their  sim- 
plicity and  purity,  I  will  rejoice  that  I  have  not 
suffered  and  studied  and  written  in  vain. 

And  may  grace,  mercy  and  peace,  from  God 
the  Father  and  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  rest  upon 
all  readers  of  these  sketches  for  the  Master's 
sake. 

THE   END. 


WHAT  THE  PAPERS  SAY 


Behind  the  Scenes. 


If  any  of  our  readers  want  a  book  that  if  read,  will  stiffen 
their  backbone  as  Baptists,  let  them  send  to  the  Journal 
AND  Messenger,  Cincinnati,  O.,  and  ask  for  "Behind  the 
Scenes."  We  read  the  articles  as  they  were  printed  in  the 
columns  of  that  paper,  and  pronounce  them  among  the  best 
things  of  the  kind  we  ever  read. — Baptist  Nation. 


We  have  just  received  the  book,  and  regard  it  as  among 
the  most  interesting  additions  made  to  our  literature  on  the 
baptismal  question  in  half  a  dozen  years.  It  will  be  inter- 
esting reading  to  Baptists  and  pedobaptists  as  well.  We 
commend  it  heartily. — Alahama  Baptist. 


The  arguments  are  extremely  telling  and  cogent,  yet  they 
are  urged  in  a  kind,  Christian,  not  in  the  least  bitter  spirit. 
— Christian  Secretary. 


No  one  can  fail  to  be  benefited  by  reading  carefully  this 
unique  book.  Pedobaptists  will  find  themselves  fairly  rep- 
resented, aud  their  views  in  general  correctly  stated. — 
Texat  Baptist. 


The  book  has  not  a  dull  page  in  it,  and  is  not  only  ex- 
ceedingly interesting  as  a  narrative,,  but  can  not  but  prove 
helpful  to  earnest,  inquiring  minds  who  desire  to  know  and 
do  their  duty. — Baptist  Weekly. 


It  is  not  often  that  a  book  deserves  to  be  read  at  once 
as  this  does  by  everybody,  and  especially  by  every  pedo- 
baptist.  It  tells  the  story  of  the  baptismal  controversy 
capitally.  The  little  book  will  make  an  impression  and 
rank  first  class  in  polemic  literature. — HeraM  of  Truth. 


We  trust  the  book  may  accomplish  great  good  in  opening 
the  eyes  of  our  pedobaptists  friends  to  the  weakness  and  un- 
scripturalness  of  their  position,  and  that  they  may  have  not 
only  light  to  see,  but  grace  to  follow  the  light. — National 
Baptist. 


The  story  is  a  captivating  one;  is  bestudded  at  every  point 
with  sparkling  gems  of  truth,  and  is  so  presented  as  to 
disarm  prejudice  at  the  outset.  We  know  of  no  book  so 
valuable  as  a  hand-book  for  Baptists  to  use  with  their  pedo- 
baptist  friends.  Send  and  get  the  book  and  loan  it,  and  keep 
on  loaning  it. — American  Baptist  Reflector. 


We  emphatically  commend  the  book.  Our  brethren  in  the 
ministry  of  other  denominations  ought  to  read  it. —  Watch- 
Tower. 


The  sketches  are  well  written,  very  sensible  and  pointed, 
and  show  very  conclusively  the  inconsistencies  of  pedobaptists 
and  the  logical  correctness  of  Baptist  views,  as  well  as  their 
accordance  with  Scripture.  The  book  is  not  only  interesting 
but  very  instructive,  and  should  be  read  by  old  and  young. — 
Kind  Words, 


We  congratulate  the  author  and  thank  the  publisher,  and 
commend  the  volume  to  all  our  readers.  It  is  the  very  book 
to  put  into  the  hands  of  inquiring  pedobaptists.  Send  and 
get  it. — Arkansas  Evangelist. 


As  we  said  a  few  weeks  ago,  it  is  a  book  that  will  do  to 
buy,  to  read  and  to  lend. — Texas  Baptist  Herald. 


These  sketches  as  they  appeared  in  the  Journal  and 
Messenger  attracted  wide  attention.  In  the  permanent 
form  in  which  they  now  appear,  they  are  worthy  of  the 
widest  circulation. — Zion's  Advocate. 


It  is  the  very  book  for  tiie  masses  of  the  people  and  for 
Baptists  to  loan  to  their  pedobaptist  neighbors  and  relatives. 
— lennessee  Baptist. 


The  book  is  not  only  interesting  but  very  instructive,  and 
should  be  read  by  old  and  young. — Biblical  Recorder. 


The  book  ought  to  be  in  every  Baptist  family,  and  it  is 
an  excellent  tiling  to  put  into  the  hands  of  any  wlio  de- 
sire to  know  about  the  Baptists.  We  give  it  heartj'  com- 
mendation.—  Central  Baptist. 


No  recent  contribution  to  Baptist  literature  lias  been  more 
gladly  welcomed. — Michigan  Christian  Herald. 


We  are  pained  to  know  that  Mr.  lams  charges  pedobap- 
tists with  lack  of  candor,  but  it  is  more  painful  to  observe 
that  he  has  proved  his  case. —  WaUhman. 


We  had  one  chapter  of  its  contents  in  the  Messenger 
a  few  weeks  since,  and  may  possibly  extract  another  shortly 
but  the  book  should    be  read   to   be   fully   appreciated. — 
Christian  Messenger,  Haiifax,  Nova  Scotia. 


There  is  no  dullness,  nor  sameness,  nor  weariness  going 
over  old  ground,  in  a  single  page.  It  is  bright,  spicy,  elo- 
quent, amusing,  instructive,  with  a  frank,  manly,  Pauline 
piety  and  devotion  to  truth  which  can  not  fail  to  profit 
every  reader.  ........ 

This  book  is  so  well  and  wittily  written  that  it  would 
interest  a  man  who  cared  nothing  for  Christ's  commands. 
It  is,  of  all  books  on  the  subject  we  have  seen,  the  best  for 
Baptists  to  put  into  the  hands  of  pedobaptist  friends;  the 
New  Testament,  of  course,  excepted. .  It  is  the  very  thing 
for  the  young  Baptists  to  read  on  this  subject,  and  it  will 
be  a  treat  to  older  Baptists  who  have  grown  a  little  weary 
of  the  usual  style  of  such  books.  —  Western  Recorder, 


BEHIND  THE  SCEf^ES, 

By  REV.  F.  M.  lAMS. 

One  of  the  most  popular  works  ever  published  on  "  Baptism  "  and 
"  Communion." 


In  a  series  of  sketches,  for  the  most  part  narrating  per- 
sonal experiences,  the  author,  formerly  a  Congregationalist, 
but  now  a  Baptist  minister,  tells  of  the  troubles  experienced 
by  pedobaptists  in  their  efforts  to  sustain  their  own  prac- 
tices. At  the  same  time,  it  shows  the  unsatisfactory  and 
unavailing  character  of  the  arguments  adduced  ;  presenting 
those  to  establish  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Baptists, 
in  such  a  manner  that  the  reader  is  convinced  before  being 
aware  of  it,  and  wakes  up  to  a  sense  of  the  duty  of  baptism 
and  an  "orderly  walk." 

The  sketches  were  first  published  in  the  JouRNAii  and 
Messenger,  of  Cincinnati,  O.,  and  such  was  their  popu- 
larity that  thousands  of  copies  were  immediately  sold  to 
subscribers  to  that  paper  who  had  read  the  sketches  as  they 
appeared.  The  publisher  is  constantly  receiving  informa- 
tion of  the  conversion  of  one  and  another  to  Baptist  views, 
by  reading  "  Behind  the  Scenes." 

It  is  a  duodecimo  volume  of  219  pages,  on  good  paper, 
clear  type,  and  well  bound ;  and,  in  order  that  it  may  have 
THE  WIDEST  POSSIBLE  CIRCULATION,  the  price  has  been  put 
at  ONLY  75  CENTS  BY  MAIL,  POSTAGE  PAID.  Liberal  re- 
ductions made  to  pastors  and  agents  who  promote  the  sale 
of  the  book.  Agents  wanted  in  every  Baptist  Church. 
Address 

(3r.  W.   LASHER, 

Publisher  "Journal  and  Messenger^' 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 


BEFORE  THE  FOOTLIGHTS. 

B7  the  Author  of  "Eehind  the  Scenes." 


A  SERIES  OF  LETTERS,  in  which  the  author,  once  a  Congre- 
gational minister,  but  now  a  highly  esteemed  and  successful 
Baptist  pastor,  replies  to  the  inquiry  of  an  old  pedobaptist 
friend  who  asks :  "Why  not  return  to  your  old  Church 

HOME  ? " 

In  his  answer  the  author  tells  his  reasons,  by  reciting  such 
facts  and  arguments  as  make  the  adherents  of  pedobaptism 
appear  to  be  acting  a  part  on  the  stage — "  Before  the  Foot- 
lights"— while   the  writer  looks  on  and   criticises  the  per-' 
formance,  giving  his  reasons  for  not  joining  in  the  farce. 

The  style  of  the  book  is  admirable;  the  arguments  are 
ably  and  fairly  presented,  so  that  a  child  can  understand" 
them ;  the  tone  and  spirit  are  kind,  conciliatory  and  per- 
suasive; but  the  facts  and  tlie  quotations  from  various 
pedobaptist  authors  are  so  set  forth  as  to  carry  conviction 
to  any  but  the  most  obdurate  opponent. 

The  letters  were  first  published  in  the  Journal  and  Mes- 
senger; but  the  demand  for  their  publication  in  a  more 
permanent  form  has  induced  the  author  and  the  publisher 
to  put  them  in  the  form  of  this  well-printed  and  well-bound 
duodecimo  volume  of  more  than  220  pages,  selling  at  the 
low  price  of  only  75  cents,  postage  prepaid.  Agents  wanted 
in  every  church,  to  whom  liberal  discounts  will  be  made. 
Send  for  terms.     Address 

&,  W.  LilSHER, 

Publisher  "Journal  and  Messenger," 

CINCINNATI,  O. 


THE 


JOURNAL  AND  MESSENGER 

[Established  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  in  1831.] 

IS  AN 

Bapnest?   and   ^i^opeus   Defender 


"THE  FAITH  ONCE  FOR  ALL  DELIVERED  TO  THE  SAINTS," 
As  understood  by  Baptists.     It  embraces  among  its  contrib- 
utors many  of  the  ablest  writers  in  the  Baptist  denomination, 
and  is 

THE  ONLY  BAPTIST   PAPER 

that  can  publish  the  Serials  of  that  most  popular  writer, 
now  enjoying  a  world-wide  reputation  as 


IPA.iN'S'Y. 


yy 


Its  Editorial,  Literary,  Agricultural,  Home  Circle  and 
Sabbath-school  Departments  are  ably  conducted,  and  are 
always 

Up  with   the  Times,  Though  Loyal  to  the  Truth. 

Its  correspondence  reaches  all  parts  of  the  world.  It 
contains  eight  pages  of  seven  columns  each,  printed  on  good 
paper,  in  clear  type,  and  is  regarded  as 

"  The  Best  Family  Paper  in  the  Country." 

Subscription  price,  $2.00  per  year.  Send  for  a  sample 
copy,  and  see  our  list  of  premiums.     Address 

JOURNAL  AND  MESSENGER, 

irn  Elm  Street, 

CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 


f 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


RECD  COL  DB. 


53877 


mi^^ 


Form  L9-50jn-ll,'50  (2554)444 


THE  LIBRARY 

XmXVEESrrY  OF  CALIFORNU 

T/^.<g    A\lnnT  net 


A     001  013  163     9 


